pages
298 rows where page = 18
This data as json, CSV (advanced)
Suggested facets: body
date (date) 298 ✖
- 2005-01-10 1
- 2005-02-28 1
- 2005-03-15 1
- 2005-05-17 1
- 2005-06-07 1
- 2005-06-13 1
- 2005-06-21 1
- 2005-06-27 1
- 2005-07-19 1
- 2005-08-16 1
- 2005-08-22 1
- 2005-09-06 1
- 2005-12-06 1
- 2006-02-07 1
- 2006-02-21 1
- 2006-05-16 1
- 2006-06-20 1
- 2006-07-24 1
- 2006-09-05 1
- 2006-09-19 1
- 2006-10-03 1
- 2006-10-17 1
- 2006-10-23 1
- 2006-11-13 1
- 2006-11-21 1
- 2006-12-05 1
- 2007-01-02 1
- 2007-01-16 1
- 2007-02-20 1
- 2007-03-20 1
- 2007-03-26 1
- 2007-04-17 1
- 2007-05-15 1
- 2007-06-05 1
- 2007-06-19 1
- 2007-07-03 1
- 2007-07-17 1
- 2007-08-07 1
- 2007-09-11 1
- 2007-09-24 1
- 2007-10-24 1
- 2007-11-06 1
- 2007-11-20 1
- 2007-12-04 1
- 2008-01-02 1
- 2008-01-15 1
- 2008-02-19 1
- 2008-03-04 1
- 2008-03-18 1
- 2008-04-15 1
- 2008-05-06 1
- 2008-06-03 1
- 2008-06-17 1
- 2008-06-23 1
- 2008-07-01 1
- 2008-07-15 1
- 2008-08-05 1
- 2008-08-11 1
- 2008-08-19 1
- 2008-09-16 1
- 2008-10-07 1
- 2008-10-21 1
- 2008-11-06 1
- 2008-12-02 1
- 2009-01-06 1
- 2009-02-03 1
- 2009-02-07 1
- 2009-03-03 1
- 2009-03-17 1
- 2009-05-19 1
- 2009-06-02 1
- 2009-06-16 1
- 2009-08-03 1
- 2009-09-15 1
- 2009-10-20 1
- 2009-11-03 1
- 2009-11-17 1
- 2010-01-26 1
- 2010-02-16 1
- 2010-03-16 1
- 2010-04-06 1
- 2010-04-20 1
- 2010-05-04 1
- 2010-05-18 1
- 2010-06-01 1
- 2010-06-15 1
- 2010-06-24 1
- 2010-07-07 1
- 2010-07-20 1
- 2010-07-27 1
- 2010-09-07 1
- 2010-09-21 1
- 2010-10-05 1
- 2010-11-16 1
- 2011-02-15 1
- 2011-07-19 1
- 2012-02-07 1
- 2012-02-27 1
- 2012-03-12 1
- 2012-05-08 1
- 2012-05-15 1
- 2012-06-06 1
- 2012-06-19 1
- 2013-04-02 1
- 2013-04-16 1
- 2013-06-18 1
- 2013-07-23 1
- 2013-09-17 1
- 2013-09-25 1
- 2013-10-15 1
- 2013-10-23 1
- 2013-11-05 1
- 2014-04-15 1
- 2014-05-06 1
- 2014-06-17 1
- 2014-07-01 1
- 2014-07-15 1
- 2014-09-16 1
- 2014-11-18 1
- 2014-12-02 1
- 2015-01-20 1
- 2015-01-21 1
- 2015-02-02 1
- 2015-02-17 1
- 2015-03-03 1
- 2015-03-17 1
- 2015-04-07 1
- 2015-04-21 1
- 2015-05-05 1
- 2015-05-19 1
- 2015-06-02 1
- 2015-09-01 1
- 2015-09-15 1
- 2015-10-06 1
- 2015-10-20 1
- 2015-11-04 1
- 2015-12-15 1
- 2016-01-05 1
- 2016-02-02 1
- 2016-02-16 1
- 2016-03-01 1
- 2016-03-15 1
- 2016-04-05 1
- 2016-04-19 1
- 2016-05-17 1
- 2016-06-07 1
- 2016-06-08 1
- 2016-06-21 1
- 2016-06-27 1
- 2016-07-05 1
- 2016-07-19 1
- 2016-09-06 1
- 2016-09-20 1
- 2016-10-04 1
- 2016-10-12 1
- 2016-10-18 1
- 2016-11-01 1
- 2016-12-06 1
- 2016-12-14 1
- 2016-12-20 1
- 2017-01-03 1
- 2017-01-17 1
- 2017-02-08 1
- 2017-02-21 1
- 2017-02-23 1
- 2017-03-07 1
- 2017-03-21 1
- 2017-04-04 1
- 2017-04-07 1
- 2017-04-12 1
- 2017-04-18 1
- 2017-05-02 1
- 2017-05-16 1
- 2017-06-06 1
- 2017-06-20 1
- 2017-07-05 1
- 2017-07-18 1
- 2017-09-05 1
- 2017-09-19 1
- 2017-10-03 1
- 2017-10-17 1
- 2017-11-07 1
- 2017-12-05 1
- 2017-12-14 1
- 2017-12-19 1
- 2018-01-02 1
- 2018-01-16 1
- 2018-02-06 1
- 2018-02-14 1
- 2018-02-15 1
- 2018-02-20 1
- 2018-03-05 1
- 2018-03-06 1
- 2018-03-20 1
- 2018-04-11 1
- 2018-04-17 1
- 2018-05-01 1
- 2018-05-09 1
- 2018-05-15 1
- 2018-06-05 1
- 2018-06-19 1
- 2018-07-10 1
- 2018-07-11 1
- 2018-07-24 1
- 2018-09-04 1
- 2018-10-02 1
- 2018-10-16 1
- 2018-11-27 1
- 2018-11-28 1
- 2019-01-02 1
- 2019-01-29 1
- 2019-02-05 1
- 2019-03-05 1
- 2019-03-13 1
- 2019-03-16 1
- 2019-03-19 1
- 2019-04-02 1
- 2019-04-16 1
- 2019-05-07 1
- 2019-07-02 1
- 2019-07-16 1
- 2019-09-03 1
- 2019-09-12 1
- 2019-09-17 1
- 2019-10-01 1
- 2019-10-15 1
- 2019-11-19 1
- 2019-12-12 1
- 2019-12-17 1
- 2019-12-18 1
- 2020-01-21 1
- 2020-02-04 1
- 2020-02-18 1
- 2020-03-03 1
- 2020-03-17 1
- 2020-04-07 1
- 2020-04-21 1
- 2020-05-05 1
- 2020-05-19 1
- 2020-05-20 1
- 2020-06-02 1
- 2020-06-16 1
- 2020-06-17 1
- 2020-06-29 1
- 2020-07-07 1
- 2020-07-14 1
- 2020-07-21 1
- 2020-07-25 1
- 2020-09-01 1
- 2020-09-15 1
- 2020-10-06 1
- 2020-10-20 1
- 2020-11-17 1
- 2020-12-01 1
- 2021-01-05 1
- 2021-01-19 1
- 2021-02-01 1
- 2021-02-02 1
- 2021-02-16 1
- 2021-03-01 1
- 2021-03-02 1
- 2021-03-11 1
- 2021-03-16 1
- 2021-03-30 1
- 2021-04-05 1
- 2021-04-06 1
- 2021-04-20 1
- 2021-04-26 1
- 2021-05-03 1
- 2021-05-04 1
- 2021-05-08 1
- 2021-05-18 1
- 2021-06-01 1
- 2021-06-15 1
- 2021-07-06 1
- 2021-07-12 1
- 2021-07-19 1
- 2021-07-20 1
- 2021-07-26 1
- 2021-09-07 1
- 2021-09-21 1
- 2021-10-05 1
- 2021-10-19 1
- 2021-11-02 1
- 2021-11-16 1
- 2021-11-30 1
- 2021-12-07 1
- 2021-12-21 1
- 2022-01-04 1
- 2022-01-18 1
- 2022-02-01 1
- 2022-02-15 1
- 2022-03-01 1
- 2022-03-15 1
- 2022-04-05 1
- 2022-04-19 1
- 2022-05-03 1
- 2022-05-17 1
Link | body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil/2005-03-15.pdf,18 | CityCouncil | 2005-03-15 | 18 | MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY- - -MARCH 15, 2005- -7:35 P.M. Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 11:00 p.m. Roll Call - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 5. Absent : None. The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider: (05-130) Public Employment - Title: City Manager. Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened and Mayor Johnson announced that the Council discussed recruitment of the new City Manager. Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 11:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Meeting Alameda City Council March 15, 2005 | CityCouncil/2005-03-15.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf,18 | CityCouncil | 2005-05-17 | 18 | Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the reports attempt to make the information more transparent and look at future liabilities, to which the Finance Director responded in the affirmative. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the City would develop a plan, to which the Finance Director responded in the affirmative. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the 10-year plan being formulated would include the liabilities. The Finance Director responded in the affirmative; stated how the City funds the liability needs to be determined. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the two plans are limited and new employees are not being added. The Finance Director responded the 1079 and 1082 plans are closed the other post employment benefits are for employees who have or will retire under the current agreements in place. Councilmember Daysog stated the City is making plans and examining liabilities other cities, such as San Diego, raided funds that should have gone toward liabilities and are almost bankrupt ; inquired whether the reports are related to said case. The Finance Director responded the rule was in place and had not been implemented; the San Diego crisis just occurred at the same time. Mayor Johnson stated the actuarials, along with the 10-year plan, are very important i the City needs to consider current obligations in evaluating economic decisions in the future. The Acting City Manager stated the point in evaluating the liability and establishing a plan is to ensure the City does not end up like San Diego in the future; the City should start mitigation and establish a plan. louncilmember deHaan inquired whether the costs appear under the retirees' names on the monthly expenditures check register [bills for ratification], to which the Finance Director responded affirmative. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether one plan is $68,000 and the other is $37,000 per month, the Finance Director responded that she could review and confirm the figures. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 18 May 17, 2005 | CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-06-07.pdf,18 | CityCouncil | 2005-06-07 | 18 | marine slips for property tax paying boats; inquired whether the Council wants to make a policy decision not to have patrol boat services; inquired what the cost would be to restore the police patrol boat to last summer's level. The Police Captain of Bureau of Operations responded the Harbor Patrol Program has never been full time; the Program takes two or three officers out of patrol on weekends, which requires overtime backfilling. Councilmember Matarrese requested figures on what it would cost to restore the patrol operation to last summer's level. Mayor Johnson stated that the Oakland Police Chief was advocating for boat funding from Homeland Security; inquired whether the City could join the Coast Guard, City of Oakland, and Sheriff's department, to provide patrol services on the Estuary The Police Captain of Bureau of Operations responded that the Sheriff's Department has been a wonderful resource for harbor assistance. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Sheriff's Department has estuary patrol, to which the Police Captain of Bureau of Operations responded in the affirmative. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Sheriff's Department performs enforcement patrols, to which the Police Captain of Bureau of Operations responded in the affirmative; stated that the Coast Guard's priorities are different from municipalities and counties; stated that he will research the Harbor Patrol Program costs. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the City of Oakland utilized their boat, to which the Police Captain of Bureau of Operations responded that the City of Oakland was not spending much time on the boat due to the shortage of patrol cars on the streets; the situation might have changed; he would look into the matter and report back to Council. Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that the figures for revitalizing the estuary patrol should also include the boat repair costs. The Police Captain of Bureau of Operations stated that the boat is a very expensive piece of equipment; one of the problems with the boat program is that officers' skil… | CityCouncil/2005-06-07.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-06-21.pdf,18 | CityCouncil | 2005-06-21 | 18 | MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY - -JUNE 21, 2005- -7:25 P.M. Mayor/Chair Johnson convened the special meeting at 8:00 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present : louncilmembers/Commissioners Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese and Mayor/ Chair Johnson - 5. Absent : None. MINUTES (05-296CC/05-032CIC) Minutes of the Special Community Improvement Commission Meeting held on April 5, 2005; and the Special Joint City Council, Community Improvement Commission, and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Meeting held on June 7, 2005. Approved. Councilmember/Commissioner Gilmore moved approval of the minutes. Councilmember/Commissione: deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. AGENDA ITEM (05-297CC/05-033CIC) Joint Public Hearing to review and approve concept of Affordable Rental Housing at Island High as an eligible use of District Housing Fund. Mayor/Chair Johnson opened the public portion of the Hearing. There being no speakers, Mayor/Chair Johnson closed the public portion of the Hearing. The Development Manager for Housing provided a briefing on the proposed concept. louncilmember/Commissioner Daysog inquired whether there would be a targeted beneficiary for rental housing, to which the Development Manager for Housing responded that the agreement allows the School District to target beneficiaries to the extent allowable by law; stated the School District would prefer to give priority to District employees. Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of the staff Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and 1 Community Improvement Commission June 21, 2005 | CityCouncil/2005-06-21.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf,18 | CityCouncil | 2005-07-19 | 18 | person makes; the more an individual makes, the higher the car allowance would be. The Human Resources Director responded in the affirmative ; stated taxes are based upon income. Councilmember Daysog stated the City Manager and City Attorney received a check for $250 with no taxes taken out before 2001 something happened, whether an IRS ruling or direction was to have the car allowance go through payroll; the amount would be reduced with taxes assessed; the issue then becomes a labor contract issue of good faith; the $250 amount was negotiated on a good faith basis; a staff member, such as the Finance Director or Human Resources Director, with Linda Tripoli's letter from April, 2001, opined that the amount would have to be increased in order to remain whole at $250; in the highest tax rate, mathematically the cost would be roughly $80 on the federal side and 11-12% on the State side, which comes out to roughly $370; that he does not see the problem. Mayor Johnson stated that in her opinion, the problem is that the matter should have come to the Council; when the Council approves a Contract that states the person receives $250 per month, the amount is $250 per month; if there is a subsequent tax change or ruling that makes the amount taxable, the matter should come to Council to ask if the amount should be $250 or increased now that taxes have to be paid on the amount; the matter is not really a legal issue, rather it is a matter of determining whether the Council wants to change the amount now that there is a tax consequence. Councilmember Daysog stated the Council's intent was always to keep the amount at $250; that he cannot imagine that the Council wanted the amount lowered in 2001; that he can only imagine that the memo issued in 2001 and circulated to the City Council was consistent with what the Council wanted. Mayor Johnson stated the clearest way to know what the Council intended would be to ask the Council: Council sets amounts for salaries, vehicle allowances for other people, and all kinds of things, w… | CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf,18 | CityCouncil | 2005-08-16 | 18 | more detail to provide a greater sense of continuity for the overall design. The Development Services Director stated there was a fairly long pre-design discussion; first, the interiors and the project that the developer wanted to build were done by Mr. Henry and given to Michael Stanton who assisted through the design guideline process and the public process; then, the Historical Advisory Board and Planning Board established the design criteria addressing the issues that the community thought were important; the criteria was provided to the Architect, which were used as the basis for beginning the project. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the Cineplex and parking garage should have continuity of design; stated that he would like the buildings to fit together currently, the two buildings stand alone. Mr. Henry responded the Cineplex and parking garage are two different buildings with different functions; applying one design to one type of building and expecting that design to apply to another type building is difficult; the design comes out of the internal organization, function and requirements of the project; there is some relationship between the parking garage and Cineplex, which was done purposely with vertical columns; the garage does have a horizontal emphasis, which has been incorporated into the Cineplex design to tie the buildings together; the essence of the buildings is similar. Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether Mr. Henry stated that he is attempting to relate the horizontal elements of the parking structure to the Cineplex, in spite of the historic theater having mostly vertical elements. Mr. Henry responded in the affirmative; stated architects debate whether or not a new building built in a historic context should be built to look like the historic building or be something of its own character both sides have pros and cons. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the State guidelines prohibit imitation of a historic building. The Development Services Director responded that the Secretary of… | CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-09-06.pdf,18 | CityCouncil | 2005-09-06 | 18 | MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY - -SEPTEMBER 6, 2005- -6:10 P.M. Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:15 p.m. Roll Call - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5. Absent : None. The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider: (05-417 - ) Conference with Labor Negotiators; Agency Negotiator : Beverly Johnson; Employee: City Attorney. (05-418) Public Employee Performance Evaluation; Title: City Attorney. (05-419) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation; Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 54956.9 Number of cases: One. (05-420) Conference with Real Property Negotiators Property: 2900 Main Street; Negotiating parties City of Alameda and Alameda Gateway, Ltd; Under negotiation: Price and terms. *** Mayor Johnson called a recess to hold the City Council Meeting at 7:25 p.m. and reconvened the Closed Session at 10:05 p.m. Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened and Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Conference with Labor Negotiators, the Council discussed labor negotiations; regarding Public Employee Performance Evaluation, the Council did not discuss the matter; regarding Conference with Legal Counsel, the Council directed that the matter be further researched and brought back on September 20, 2005; and regarding Conference with Real Property Negotiators, the Council directed that a response letter be sent. Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 11:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk Agenda for meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Meeting Alameda City Council September 6, 2005 | CityCouncil/2005-09-06.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-12-06.pdf,18 | CityCouncil | 2005-12-06 | 18 | Mayor/Chair stated that the City's population is lower now than in 1996. Vice Mayor/Commissioner/Authority Member Gilmore inquired whether the 2005 debt service was lower than in 1996, to which the External Auditor responded in the affirmative. Vice Mayor/Commissioner/Authorit Member Gilmore stated there have been discussions on how much bonds cost the City; everything that has been accomplished has been done without increasing the total debt service. The External Auditor stated management has been good; the last ten years have not been easy; more is being done with less. Mayor/Chair Johnson questioned the figures for the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority original staff salaries versus actual salaries. The External Auditor stated Government Accounting Standards Board (GASB) requires the original, adopted budgeted amount be presented for major funds. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether the staff fringe benefits were included in the salaries, to which the External Auditor responded in the affirmative. Mayor/Chain Johnson inquired why there was a large difference between the amount budgeted and the amount spent for office expenditures; stated the original budget for professional and administrative services was reduced significantly expenditures were almost double the original budgeted amount; more accuracy is needed. The External Auditor responded the increase in professional and administrative services was due to an unexpected EDA grant; stated budget controls and accuracy are far better in the 2004-05 year. louncilmember/Commissioner/Authority Member deHaan inquired whether there were other improvements or further decay from the previous audit. The External Auditor stated there has not been further decay; capital assets are very difficult to control and have improved. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Community 4 Improvement Commission, and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority December 6, 2005 | CityCouncil/2005-12-06.pdf |
CityCouncil/2006-02-07.pdf,18 | CityCouncil | 2006-02-07 | 18 | item. Councilmember Matarrese stated that the motion is that the $400,000 would be for acquisition [of Fire Station 3] only, and the study would be addressed during the budget process. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the $400,000 would be taken out of the reserves. Councilmember Matarrese responded that the $400,000 would still remain in the reserves but would be designated for Fire Station 3 acquisition. Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion. Under discussion, Councilmember deHaan stated that he hopes the City Manager would review existing funding sources for the study. Mayor Johnson stated a fire station needs study for the Base might be premature because the property has not been acquired. Councilmember Matarrese stated that Fire Station 3 needs to be addressed; the problems at Fire Station 3 are comparable to the worst sidewalk or pothole. Councilmember deHaan amended the motion to include that Contracts return to the Council for review. Councilmember Matarrese and Vice Mayor Gilmore agreed to the amended motion. On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the Special Joint Meeting at 8:56 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger, City Clerk Secretary, Community Improvement Commission The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and 8 Community Improvement Commission February 7, 2006 | CityCouncil/2006-02-07.pdf |
CityCouncil/2006-02-21.pdf,18 | CityCouncil | 2006-02-21 | 18 | AGENDA ITEM CITY COUNCIL AND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION ACTION (06-075 CC/06-006 CIC) Recommendation to amend two loans to the Alameda Development Corporation for 626 Buena Vista Avenue, Alameda and provide up to $1.2 million in subsidy to fund eight units of affordable ownership housing. The Development Services Director gave a brief presentation. Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan stated it is a pleasure to be at this point of the process; partnering with Habitat for Humanity is excellent each unit has a heavy subsidy as high as $220,000 because of the housing market; inquired whether the Alameda Development Corporation (ADC) was an outgrowth of the Council. Greg Fujita, ADC President, responded in the affirmative; stated ADC's history was based on a 60% homeownership goal eight years ago; the Homeownership Taskforce suggested formation of a non- profit. Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether ADC was involved at the Bayport development as well. Mr. Fujita responded in the affirmative; stated ADC was performing the buyer selection process for Bayport, RCD and School District projects. The Development Services Director noted that ADC also performed the Kaufman and Broad buyer selection process. Vice Mayor/Commissioner Gilmore stated that the staff report included a cost proforma; the 10% hard construction contingency caught her eye; other City projects have had 15% to 20% contingencies. inquired whether the 10% contingency was realistic. The Development Services Director responded that the project's partners have experience and seem very comfortable and confident with the budget. Councilmember/Commissioner Daysog inquired whether the subsidy was money that could only be used for housing programs. The Development Services Director responded in the affirmative. stated the sources include federal home funds, tax increment specifically restricted to affordable housing, and affordable Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and 2 Community Improvement Commission February 21, 2006 | CityCouncil/2006-02-21.pdf |
CityCouncil/2006-05-16.pdf,18 | CityCouncil | 2006-05-16 | 18 | Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 6. (06-275 CC/06-022 CIC) Discussion of City Attorney/General Counsel Legal Services and staffing options. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the majority of the agenda item could be continued; direction can be given to hire one Deputy City Attorney. . The City Attorney/Legal Counsel stated the hiring would be for one Assistant City Attorney. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether the motion would be to hire one Assistant City Attorney. . Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese responded in the affirmative; stated the background is that David Brandt [Assistant City Attorney ] moved from the City Attorney's office to the City Manager's office. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the hiring process has started; approval could be given to hire one Assistant City Attorney. Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore moved approval to hire one Assistant City Attorney. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 6. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the remainder of the agenda item would be continued. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor/Chail Johnson adjourned the Special Joint Meeting at 9:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger, City Clerk Secretary, Community Improvement Commission The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda 4 Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, Community Improvement Commission, and Housing Authority Board of Commissioners May 16, 2006 | CityCouncil/2006-05-16.pdf |
CityCouncil/2006-06-20.pdf,18 | CityCouncil | 2006-06-20 | 18 | issue that needs to be reviewed. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Daysog stated he was glad that unfunded positions are not being eliminated; the Police Department had a mass retirement in 2001 or 2002 ; Police positions decreased from 111 to 104; a decision was made not to fill the positions the City continues to grow; conversation needs to steer towards funding the unfunded positions; funding sources need to be recognized he does not want to take from "operational peter" to pay for "infrastructure paul. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated other departments have a number of unfunded positions. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated there was concern in getting the pavement management program up to speed and eliminating the backlog; inquired whether other funds might be available in addition to Proposition 42. The City Manager/Executive Director responded the Construction Improvement Tax and Urban Runoff Fund are available. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated the risk of not funding positions versus the risk of keeping the reserves at the current level is important to review. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated other City needs should be reviewed also. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated the needs should be reviewed on a risk basis. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired when the sidewalk and tree management program would be presented and whether the budget would be impacted. The City Manager/Executive Director responded the future budget would be impacted; stated a lot of money was appropriated for sidewalk improvements last February; she cannot predict the exact date when the program would be presented. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated stabilizing the Pavement Management Program and identifying a constant funding stream would provide a balance; inquired Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse 4 and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission June 20, 2006 | CityCouncil/2006-06-20.pdf |
CityCouncil/2006-09-05.pdf,18 | CityCouncil | 2006-09-05 | 18 | (06-451) - Councilmember deHaan stated the Tube lighting has been on the board for at least three years and CalTrans has deferred the project for two years; he would like the issue to be tracked; the project needs to move forward. (06-452) Councilmember deHaan stated the Central Avenue [crosswalk] embedded lighting is not functioning; inquired when the Park Street embedded lighting would be done near Boniere Bakery. (06-453) Councilmember deHaan stated that Park Street trash receptacles overflowed from the weekend; trash pick up should be brought under control within the City before the rainy season. (06-454) Councilmember Matarrese stated repairs are being made on Lincoln Avenue and Park Street overhead wires; half of the weed- filled triangle near Tilden Way has been shaved away; inquired whether the other half could be shaved and landscaped. The City Manager responded the issue would be addressed. (06-455) Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether Long's Drug Store was supposed to do some landscape upgrades. The City Manager stated she should look into the matter. Councilmember Matarrese stated that he would like to see some landscaping on the corner across from City Hall. (06-456) Mayor Johnson stated that large weeds have grown at the Otis Drive median off the Bay Farm Bridge. The City Manager stated she would talk to the Public Works Director about the matter. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Regular Meeting at 12:55 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 18 September 5, 2006 | CityCouncil/2006-09-05.pdf |
CityCouncil/2006-09-19.pdf,18 | CityCouncil | 2006-09-19 | 18 | SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL, ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (ARRA). , COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC) , AND HOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS (HABOC) MEETING TUESDAY- - - SEPTEMBER 19, 2006- -7:00 P.M. Mayor/Chair convened the Special Joint Meeting at 7:07 p.m. Roll Call - Present : Councilmembers/ Commissioners/ Authority Members / Board Members Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Commissioner Torrey, and Mayor/Chair Johnson - 6. Absent : None. The Special Joint Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider : (06-052CIC) Conference with Real Property Negotiators; Property: Alameda Landing; Negotiating parties: City of Alameda Community Improvement Commission and Catellus; Under negotiation: Price and terms (06-459CC/06-053CIC) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation; Name of case: Operation Dignity V. Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, City of Alameda, Community Improvement Commission and Housing Authority. Alex McElree, Operation Dignity Executive Director, stated Operation Dignity looks forward to working with Resources for Community Development (RCD) and the City to put money together to build the units; the units are vital to Operation Dignity and housing providers; transitional people should be allowed to move into permanent spaces ; urged approval of the Settlement Agreement. Following the Closed Session, the Special Joint Meeting was reconvened and Mayor/Chair Johnson announced that regarding Real Property, Commissioners received a briefing from Real Property Negotiator and no action was taken; regarding Existing Litigation, Council/Commissioners/Authority Members/Board Members met with Legal Counsel to discuss the Operation Dignity Lawsuit and agreed to a final settlement of the lawsuit; stated the Settlement Agreement would be available in the City Clerk's office. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Community 1 Improvement Commission, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and Housing Authority Board of Commissioners September 19, 2006 | CityCouncil/2006-09-19.pdf |
CityCouncil/2006-10-03.pdf,18 | CityCouncil | 2006-10-03 | 18 | responsible for monitoring the remediation requirements, to which The Base Reuse and Community Development Division Manager responded the property owners. Councilmember/Commissioner/Board Member Matarrese inquired what is the Navy's plume remediation timetable. The Base Reuse and Community Development Division Manager responded the Navy hopes to be underway with the active remediation within a year and completely done by 2016. louncilmember/Commissioner Daysog moved approval of the staff recommendations and adoption of resolution. Commissioner Torrey seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 6. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the Special Joint Meeting at 7:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger, City Clerk Secretary, Community Improvement Commission The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Community 4 Improvement Commission and Housing Authority Board of Commissioners October 3, 2006 | CityCouncil/2006-10-03.pdf |
CityCouncil/2006-10-17.pdf,18 | CityCouncil | 2006-10-17 | 18 | Counci lmember deHaan stated Level E is quite concerning inquired whether the public had concerns or expressed a desire for Level E. The Transportation Commission Chair responded the recommendation is to acknowledge congestion, look at intersections, and have a public process in which a specific determination would be made stated the 55-second delay was just an example. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether Policy No. 7's intent is to look at the significance of automobile congestion versus a trade off for being able to accommodate and encourage mass transit. The Transportation Commission Chair responded that much of the discussion was around proposals for eight and nine lane intersections to mitigate congestion at Atlantic Avenue and Webster Street; stated the Commission felt the proposals were not in holding with Alameda's character; the Commission felt rather than building wide intersections and super high speed wide roads that cut neighborhoods off, that it might be better to accept certain congestion levels at commuter peak hours. Councilmember Matarrese stated Policy No. 7 states that congestion is not considered to be a significant environmental impact he would like to see Policy No. 7 address a trigger point that the Transportation Commission Chair explained; studies and a public process should be done to weigh the balance when faced with measures that would be more detrimental than the congestion which would result if it stays the way it is; an example would be expanding the Appezzato Parkway and Webster Street intersection to multiple lanes, which would be a disaster. Mayor Johnson stated Policies No. 1 through 6 look like good goals; Policy No. 7 should be reviewed because impacts should be understood; inquired whether Policy No. 7 would omit a Level D rating in the analysis of intersections. The Transportation Commission Chair responded the current Transportation Master Plan recommendations still have Level D; the proposed recommendation would identify intersections ahead of time higher congestion … | CityCouncil/2006-10-17.pdf |
CityCouncil/2006-11-21.pdf,18 | CityCouncil | 2006-11-21 | 18 | Mr. Wang noted that the plan presented meets Measure A requirements; stated every lot is a minimum of 2000 square feet. In response to Mayor Johnson's inquiry regarding high-rise housing, Mr. Wang stated the high-rise is for senior citizen assisted living. Mr. Wang further stated an ENA is needed because the project is very complicated. Mayor/Chair Johnson encouraged Mr. Wang to ensure whatever plan he brings forward is Measure A compliant. louncilmember/Commissioner Daysog stated that he recognizes the need for an ENA; developers need a degree of certainty about the developer's and City's responsibilities before moving forward with the preliminary parts of a project; the ENA process would flush out the details about what is wanted for the northern waterfront; the ENA process would determine whether public financing should be tax increment financing or mello roos; the process flushes out the land use design details, financials and other issues, such as Measure A compliance and Clement Avenue extension; he is confident issues can be dealt with; however, there has to be a lot more public input and an understanding that the plan might change through the ENA process as the NWSP comes forward; the Concept Plan cannot trump the NWSP urged Mr. Wang to keep his team together and bring the matter back rapidly if the ENA is not approved tonight. Mr. Wang stated that he is not asking the City to issue any bond, tax increment or mello roos financing; however, he cannot get private financing without the ENA and DDA; he can afford seed financing for study, but needs bank support for the development. ouncilmember/Commissioner deHaan stated waiting for the NWSP to come forward should not stop Mr. Wang from working with the Planning and Building Department and Development Services noted most developers would not take on lagoons; encouraged Mr. Wang to continue and directed staff to work with Mr. Wang. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated direction needs to be included in a motion; stated there is very little information on the project, suc… | CityCouncil/2006-11-21.pdf |
CityCouncil/2006-12-05.pdf,18 | CityCouncil | 2006-12-05 | 18 | developer to come back to Council if the Tinker Avenue project is declared infeasible and an agreement is not reached with the College District; Council would have the opportunity to evaluate the work done to date and request a ninety-day review to ensure that the extension happens; the project contemplates that there should be alternative improvements if the Council decides that the right-of-way acquisition cannot happen; the alternative improvements have not been designed, subject to CEQA, and may require acquisition of land that the City does not control; the developer would pay an in-lieu fee that would be used to augment the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program designed to reduce trips if the alternative improvements are also infeasible; the in-lieu fee would be a bonus payment because the 2000 EIR and the SEIR call for Council to adopt a statement of overriding considerations so that the project could go forward without Tinker Avenue; everyone recognizes that the Tinker Avenue extension is very important to yield optimum land values. Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated Section 3.72 (C) and (D) of the DDA could be interpreted as not being an interactive process; the ninety-day review is not noted in the DDA. The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager stated the language is part of the supplemental staff report. Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated the language should be bulletproof. Vice Mayor/Authority Member/Commissioner Gilmore inquired who would be responsible for funding plans, acquisition, and construction if Tinker Avenue extension is deemed infeasible, to which the Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded Catellus. louncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Daysog stated everyone sees the project as a rare opportunity to transform a blighted area into something beautiful; inquired whether any thought has been given to beautifying the area when entering Alameda through the Webster Street Tube. The Base Reuse and Community … | CityCouncil/2006-12-05.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-01-02.pdf,18 | CityCouncil | 2007-01-02 | 18 | (07-013B) Final Passage of Ordinance Approving Development Agreement DA-06-0003 By and Between the City of Alameda and Palmtree Acquisition Corporation (Successor by Merger to Catellus Development Corporation) Governing the Development of Up To 400,000 Square Feet of Office Space; a 20,000 Square Foot Health Club; and 300,000 Square Feet of Retail Space or 50,000 Square Feet of Retail Space and 370,000 Square Feet of Research and Development Space. Continued to January 16, 2007; and (07-013C) Ordinance No. 2959, "Approving Development Agreement DA- 06-004 By and Between the City of Alameda and the Palmtree Acquisition Corporation Governing the Development of Up To 300 Housing Units. Finally passed. Councilmember Gilmore stated she has questions regarding the TDM Program and the funding limits in the DDA; inquired whether the TDM Program cap would not be reviewed again. The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded the TDM Program funding is in the commercial Development Agreement (DA) , Section 3.12 on page 20; stated the project build-out cap is $425,000 per year with an annual Consumer Price Index (CPI) escalator; an amendment to the DDA allowed the cap to be increased in the event Tinker Avenue was declared infeasible; Tinker Avenue alternatives could be explored for up to three years and the cap could be adjusted to take into account the time to bring the alternative on line; money would be pledged to augment the TDM Program in the event the alternative was declared infeasible. Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether mechanisms are not in place for changing the cap other than the annual CIP if Tinker Avenue extension is completed, to which the Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Matarrese stated the water shuttle and other activities, including managing the program, comes out of the TDM Program; concerns were raised that there is no mechanism for getting more money if there is unanticipated success and the criteria established in the program wer… | CityCouncil/2007-01-02.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-01-16.pdf,18 | CityCouncil | 2007-01-16 | 18 | regarding taking care of visitors coming into Alameda or Alameda Point. Councilmember Matarrese moved final passage of the ordinance. Vice Mayor Tam seconded the motion. Under discussion, Vice Mayor Tam echoed Councilmember Matarrese': commending staff. On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (07-036) - David Howard, Alameda, discussed transportation and submitted a handout on a parking institute policy brief. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (07-037) Vice Mayor Tam announced that she attended the League of California Cities conference and orientation for new Councilmembers; stated approximately 440 people attended. the sessions provided a good overview of best practices in City governance, the Brown Act, updates on emerging legislation, and land use policies; the Governor's newly released budget seems to be favorable for local governments ; AB 2511 compliance is an issue; encouraged Council to participate in the July conference. Mayor Johnson stated she has encouraged Councilmembers to attend the July conference every year; requested that the City Clerk try to schedule Councilmembers to attend. The City Manager stated the conference is scheduled for July 25 through 28. (07-038) Selection of Councilmember and alternate to serve as the League of California Cities East Bay Division representative. Continued to February 6, 2007. Vice Mayor Tam volunteered to serve as the League's representative. Councilmember deHaan stated he would like the opportunity to serve also. Vice Mayor Tam stated that she was interested in serving on the Environmental Quality Policy Committee, which deals with emerging regulations such as global warming. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 18 January 16, 2007 | CityCouncil/2007-01-16.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-02-20.pdf,18 | CityCouncil | 2007-02-20 | 18 | Member/Commissioner Gilmore's suggestion; the budget should not use the net asset balance as part of the regular operating budget ; the intended purpose is not to use the money for operations. The City Manager stated the matter would be brought back to address impacts and recommend budget adjustments. Councilmember/Board MMember/Commissioner deHaan stated a short-term fix is needed; setting a benchmark would be a healthy start. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the budget would be set, not benchmarks. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether the [General Fund reserve would be over 20% with the adjustment, to which the Finance Director responded in the affirmative. In response to Councilmember/Boaro Member/Commissioner Matarrese's inquiry about the amount, the Finance Director stated $415,645. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether spending $400,000 on deferred maintenance would be better, to which the Finance Director responded that she would not recommend using the money for deferred maintenance. the matter could be considered in the next budget. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated the matter should be included in the next budget. louncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated discussions should address whether and when to build reserves back up to 25%. Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner Tam requested that the Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, 2 Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission February 20, 2007 | CityCouncil/2007-02-20.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-03-20.pdf,18 | CityCouncil | 2007-03-20 | 18 | explanation on how annual payments are made through the Education Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF) and how the funding relates to School District housing, i.e., the conversion of Island High School. The Housing Development Manager responded ERAF is State funding; stated a portion of tax increment goes to the State to be distributed to school districts; the capital improvement and housing funds are a negotiated pass-through agreement the housing funds are being accessed for the development of Island High School ; she would need to verify whether capital improvement funds have been accessed. The Development Services Director stated two payments were required by the State over the last few years; one large bulk payment was made a few years ago; a decision was made to finance the second payment of $770,000 and pay it over ten years; capital improvement funding went to the School District for projects constructed over the past year such as Ruby Bridges Elementary School and the park and community building; the pass-through agreements reflect that the School District negotiated for 20% of the money instead of 80%; 20% of all redevelopment money collected must be spent on low and moderate income housing the School District's goal is to develop affordable housing for teachers and employees; the City is banking the funds for the School District; redevelopment housing money must be used for affordable housing purposes. Commissioner Tam inquired whether three separate pots of money are set up for education from redevelopment districts, to which the Development Services Director responded in the affirmative. Commissioner deHaan inquired what was the payment two years ago. The Development Services Director responded the last payment was $470,000. stated the payment was over $1 million the year before. Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the support was for Ruby Bridges Elementary School infrastructure. The Development Services Director responded the support was for infrastructure, land, and predevelopment activity. Commissio… | CityCouncil/2007-03-20.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-04-17.pdf,18 | CityCouncil | 2007-04-17 | 18 | MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY- - -APRIL 17, 2007- -6:00 P.M. Mayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:10 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers/Commissioners deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor/Chair Johnson - 5. Absent : None. The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider : (07-166CC) Conference with Labor Negotiators Agency negotiators : Craig Jory and Human Resources Director; Employee organizations : All City Bargaining Units. ( 07-011CIC) Conference with Real Property Negotiators Property: APN 74-0905-022-05, 074-0905-027 and 074-0905-028-04 Negotiating parties: CIC and Union Pacific Railroad; Under negotiation: Price and terms. Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened and Mayor/Chair Johnson announced that regarding Labor, Council received a briefing on the status of labor negotiations from Labor Negotiators and provided direction; regarding Real Property, the Commission received a briefing from Real Property Negotiators regarding potential terms of acquisition and gave direction to staff regarding negotiating parameters. Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 7:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lana Stoker, Acting City Clerk Acting Secretary, Community Improvement Commission The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and Community Improvement Commission April 17, 2007 | CityCouncil/2007-04-17.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-05-15.pdf,18 | CityCouncil | 2007-05-15 | 18 | MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY- - -MAY 15, 2007- - -6:00 p.m. Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:05 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor Johnson - 5. Absent : None. The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider: (07-217) Conference with Real Property Negotiators; Properties : Alameda Gateway, Alameda Marina, Ballena Marina, Encinal Industries, and Encinal Marina; Negotiating parties City and J. Beery, Pacific Shops, Almar Property, P. Wang and Encinal Marina; Under negotiation: Price and terms. ( 07-218 ) Conference with Labor Negotiators; Agency Negotiators: Craig Jory and Human Resources Director Employee Organizations : All City Bargaining Units. Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened and Mayor Johnson announced that Council regarding Property, Council received a briefing from its Real Property Negotiators regarding the status of existing leases and gave direction on negotiating parameters for new lease terms; regarding Labor, Council received a briefing from its Labor Negotiators and gave direction on negotiating parameters. Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 7:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Meeting Alameda City Council May 15, 2007 | CityCouncil/2007-05-15.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-06-05.pdf,18 | CityCouncil | 2007-06-05 | 18 | other legal counsels advise that the situation could be concerning at a later point; the proposed station is nowhere near what a Costco would be; queuing has been requested for three cars; Costco has queuing for four cars; inquired whether the Planning Board had additional design requirements. The Planning Services Manager responded the Planning Board wanted to limit truck delivery hours to early morning; stated no other design aspects were requested. Mayor Johnson clarified that other design changes were not made. Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether the entire issue goes back to the Planning Board regardless of what action is taken tonight because the Planning Board still needs to approve the site plan; further inquired whether tonight's CEQA decision is binding. The City Attorney responded the CEQA document is final if Council upholds the Planning Board's decision; stated any member of the public can appeal if Council remands the document to the Planning Board with specific direction and the Planning Board follows the direction and takes action on both the CEQA document and the project; the CEQA document can be appealed as well as any action taken on the project. Mayor Johnson stated that Council is addressing the mitigated negative declaration, which has nothing to do with the approval of the project; the project can still be denied; the project is still an independent issue. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether Council would be upholding or denying the Planning Board's approval of the mitigated negative declaration rather than approving the mitigated negative declaration. The City Attorney responded the options are to either uphold the Planning Board's approval or remand the document back to the Planning Board for further review with specific direction as to what Council wants the Planning Board to review. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the project would be measured against the document whether the document goes back to the Planning Board or not, to which the City Attorney responded in the af… | CityCouncil/2007-06-05.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-06-19.pdf,18 | CityCouncil | 2007-06-19 | 18 | would be reviewed at mid-year. Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired whether some capital improvement funds could be used for the Meyers House to make the facility more available to the City. The Recreation and Park Director responded the Meyers House is partially funded through a trust fund established by the Meyers family stated the Recreation and Park Department subsidizes approximately $20,000 to $25,000 per year for the upkeep to the grounds and house. Mayor/Chail Johnson stated eventually roof repair would need to be done. The Recreation and Park Director stated a long-term plan needs to be developed. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated that she was on the Planning Board when the City Council accepted the Meyers House; a condition was that the Meyers House would not cost the City money. Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired what is the maintenance cost, to which the Recreation and Park Director responded $50,000 to $60,000 per year. Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired whether the City is subsidizing over half of the cost, to which the Recreation and Park Director responded in the affirmative. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated previous discussions addressed not using the grounds more because of the lack of restrooms. The Recreation and Park Director stated no outdoor restroom facilities are available; the Meyers House is in the middle of a residential neighborhood; rentals take place a couple of times a year for wedding ceremonies and teas; parking is limited. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated residents are subsidizing the Meyers House; it is important to find a way for residents to enjoy the facility. Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired what are the hours of operation. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda 7 Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission June 19, 2007 | CityCouncil/2007-06-19.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-07-03.pdf,18 | CityCouncil | 2007-07-03 | 18 | Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the Special Joint Meeting at 7:42 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger, City Clerk Secretary, Community Improvement Commission The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority and Community Improvement Commission July 3, 2007 | CityCouncil/2007-07-03.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-07-17.pdf,18 | CityCouncil | 2007-07-17 | 18 | (07 - 357) Vice Mayor Tam requested that the Council meeting be adjourned in a moment of silence in memory of Archie Waterbury and Tom Matthews. (07-358) Councilmember Matarrese requested reviewing the potential for a big box ordinance; stated other communities have ordinances which govern square footage and the amount of non- taxable items that can be sold in the super stores; the term "big box" is used, but not defined, in the Northern Waterfront General Plan Amendment and Economic Development Strategic Plan; the term should be defined before project proposals are discussed; the City of Livermore and other cities are reviewing the issue. (07- - 359 ) Councilmember Matarrese requested development of a written policy that would make closed session material available after a discussed items are resolved or moot. (07-360) Councilmember deHaan stated that Council voted to review the impact that big boxes would have on existing retail. funding has not been available [for the study] companies should be respective of wages and health benefits when a threshold of 100 employees is hit; he would like to have said matter included in the big box discussions. Mayor Johnson stated that several cities are going through the process of adopting a big box ordinance; the City has never defined big box; a study of impacts does not need to be completed first; the ordinance should be brought forward soon; suggested moving forward in reviewing ordinances in other communities. Councilmember deHaan stated many cities have already defined big box; the threshold is approximately 50,000 square feet; Truckee has defined big box accordingly [50,000 square feet]. Councilmember Matarrese stated the City of Livermore defines big box as 90,000 square feet. Mayor Johnson stated the matter would be brought back to Council for discussion. Regular Meeting 18 Alameda City Council July 17, 2007 | CityCouncil/2007-07-17.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-08-07.pdf,18 | CityCouncil | 2007-08-07 | 18 | education process, particularly with the permitted spaces after 10:00 a.m. on the top floor. Chair Johnson stated that parking fines are a lot lower in Alameda than other cities increasing street fines versus structure fines and free holiday parking should be reviewed; a report should be brought back by nid-summer next year on opportunities for more permit parking; opportunities should be given for City employees and students to park in the parking structure if space is available. Commissioner deHaan stated that he would like to have feedback on what other cities charge for metered parking. The Development Services Director stated a mix exists within various cities; caution needs to be exercised to ensure people do not feel bad about the new experience [of using the parking structure]. Commissioner deHaan inquired what the hours of the two part-time enforcement officers would be. The Development Services Director responded two officers would provide coverage six days per week between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Commissioner deHaan inquired whether benefits would be provided, to which the Redevelopment Manager responded in the negative. Commissioner deHaan inquired what is the annual meter revenue, to which the Business Development Manager responded approximately $500,000. Bill Smith, Alameda, discussed bicycle parking. Pauline Kelley, Alameda, complimented staff and stated that she supports permitted parking. Robb Ratto, Park Street Business Association (PSBA) stated that he supports the staff recommendation; enforcement is critical ; habitual offenders should be fined heavily; the PSBA Board unanimously approved the parking plan with the provision that cameras be installed. Commissioner Tam stated the Economic Development Commission report shows that there are four to six part-time parking enforcement Special Joint Meeting 2 Alameda City Council and Community Improvement Commission August 7, 2007 | CityCouncil/2007-08-07.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-09-11.pdf,18 | CityCouncil | 2007-09-11 | 18 | Demographics: Ethnicity White 5.8% African American 6.7% Asian 0.7% American Indian/Alaska Native 28.1% 54.5% Some other race Two or more races 4.2% People of Hispanic origin may be of any race. 15% of the people in Alameda were Hispanic. 48% of the people in Alameda were White non-Hispanic. Source: 2005 American Community Survey 5 Demographics: Per Capita Income $45,000 $40,000 $35,000 $30,000 $25,000 $20,000 $15,000 $10,000 $5,000 $0 Year Source: American Community Survey Data adjusted for inflation 6 3 | CityCouncil/2007-09-11.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-11-06.pdf,18 | CityCouncil | 2007-11-06 | 18 | MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY- - -NOVEMBER 6, 2007--6:00P.M. - Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:10 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor Johnson - 5. Absent : None. The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider : (07-512) Conference with Labor Negotiators: Agency Negotiators : Craig Jory and Human Resources Director Employee Organizations: All Public Safety Bargaining Units. (07-513) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation; Initiation of litigation pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 54956.9; Number of cases: One. Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened and Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Labor, Council received a briefing on the procedures and status of negotiations with public safety bargaining units; no action was taken; regarding Litigation, Council received a briefing from its Legal Counsel on the matter of potential litigation; no action was taken. Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 7:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Meeting Alameda City Council November 6, 2007 | CityCouncil/2007-11-06.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-11-20.pdf,18 | CityCouncil | 2007-11-20 | 18 | going down a road that might not be able to be finished; what the building could be, other than a Community Arts/Planning and Building Center, has not been fully explored; people visiting the Planning and Building Department is not the same as people visiting a museum or art center; Planning and Building Department customers are there to do business; he wants to know whether the project can be financed and what it will take to finance the project before voting on anything. louncilmember Gilmore stated that the money for the architectural contract is for changes that have to made to the building regardless of who occupies the building; construction costs are not getting any cheaper; once the drawings are underway and there is a better idea of the number [project cost], the City is going to determine how to finance the project. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether spending the $481,000 is use neutral and whether it does not matter whether or not the building would be a Cultural Arts Center/Museum or a Community Arts/Planning and Building Center. The Planning and Building Director responded the same work goes into the construction plans stated furnishing would be the only difference; the funding from permit center revenues would have to be repaid if a different use was selected. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether using said funding would require that the building be used as the Community Arts/Planning and Building Center. The City Manager responded the assumption is that the permit center funds would be used for the Community Arts/Planning and Building Center to go forward because the funds have been collected related to Planning and Building services; the proposal was to use the funds to get more detailed cost estimates and come back with a financing plan based on the cost estimates. Councilmember deHaan inquired how much money is in the permit center fund, to which Vice Mayor Tam responded $1.089 million. Councilmember deHaan stated almost half of the funding would be used for design; the building would … | CityCouncil/2007-11-20.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-12-04.pdf,18 | CityCouncil | 2007-12-04 | 18 | the Library inquired whether the $2 million was redevelopment money that was held in case Library costs escalated, to which the Development Services Director responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Matarrese stated there is still Measure O money that is supposed to go for branch upgrades a report is needed on the matter at some point; he would rather open the mezzanine balcony now; people saw the potential for the theater he thinks the loan should be given to complete the job; twelve public days might demand 800 seats. Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation. Commissioner Gilmore seconded the motion. Under discussion, Commissioner Gilmore requested a run down on restoration that has been accomplished. The Development Services Director stated the project has gone very well: major, significant repairs and alterations were made to the ceiling; all the trim molding was painted; original light fixtures were installed; fabric workers restored the original curtain; artisans did all of the leaf work; the original art work was put back in place; the detail is phenomenal; some of the original furniture might be recovered. Chair Johnson stated the marquee sign is beautiful. Commissioner deHaan stated that the Historic Alameda Theater is one of the better restorations; separating the upper balconies into theaters would be a shame. inquired how many seats will be gained, to which the Development Services Director responded 150. Commissioner deHaan requested a breakdown of efforts made for the transition into the Cineplex. The Development Services Director stated some of the original carpeting will be put back into the Historic Theater; the Cineplex will have similar carpeting and upholstery; similar icons and images have been carried through the Cineplex. Commissioner Gilmore requested staff to update the website photos. Commissioner Tam stated that the schedule shows a March opening ; all contingencies are being used; inquired whether the CIC would be requesting another loan in the next four mon… | CityCouncil/2007-12-04.pdf |
CityCouncil/2008-01-02.pdf,18 | CityCouncil | 2008-01-02 | 18 | MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING WEDNESDAY - -JANUARY 2, 2008- - -7:27 P.M. Chair Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 7:32 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present : Commissioners deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam, and Chair Johnson - 5. Absent : None. CONSENT CALENDAR Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of the Consent Calendar. Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number. ] (*08-01) - Minutes of the Special Joint City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Meeting of December 4, 2007, and the Special Community Improvement Commission Meeting of December 18, 2007. Approved. (*08-02) - Recommendation to approve the amended Contract with Architectural Resources Group, Inc. by increasing the Contract amount by $23, 840 to provide additional Construction Administration Services for the restoration and rehabilitation of the Historic Alameda Theater. Accepted. AGENDA ITEMS None ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 7:33 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger Secretary The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Meeting Community Improvement Commission January 2, 2008 | CityCouncil/2008-01-02.pdf |
CityCouncil/2008-01-15.pdf,18 | CityCouncil | 2008-01-15 | 18 | optimum position so that there is a viable public transit system; ridership would improve and become a success if AC Transit is able to improve run times; the Transportation Commission has gone through an exhaustive process. Vice Mayor Tam moved approval of staff recommendations 1 through 6 and added direction for staff to look at reducing the number of lanes from four to three on Otis Drive; the matter could be part of a long-term study to look at opportunities to reduce congestion on Otis Drive by having more transit choices whether the choices be bicycles, cars, or a more viable transit system. The motion was rescinded because a preceding motion was outstanding. Councilmember deHaan seconded Councilmember Matarrese's motion with modifications. Mayor Johnson stated that AC Transit is working with the City on reviewing routes the Transportation Commission did not have said opportunity. Robb Ratto, Transportation Commission Member, stated the Transportation Commission was dealing with the reality of the budget ; the Transportation Commission's desire was to move the bus line to Shoreline Drive; staff advised the Commission that there was no budget to improve the Shoreline Drive bus stop pads everyone agreed to cut the Monarch Street loop; six riders per day does not make for an affective transit program, especially when two minutes is taken out of the schedule; an additional bus could be used elsewhere for more transit riders. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the bus could run on time if the Monarch Street loop is not cut, to which Mr. Bruzzone responded in the negative. Councilmember deHaan stated route times were not previously discussed. Councilmember Matarrese stated that he is not in support of approving recommendations 1 through 6 because #4 is a reluctant recommendation; the Transportation Commission really wants #5; one scenario is to leave Monarch Street and make all the other changes including #5; making the service more reliable would necessitate moving Monarch Street to Lexington Street. Mayor Johnson s… | CityCouncil/2008-01-15.pdf |
CityCouncil/2008-02-19.pdf,18 | CityCouncil | 2008-02-19 | 18 | The Public Works Director responded the Recreation and Park Department thought that the risk would be minimal stated the project would be deferred to July 1, 2008. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether deferring the project to next year would create a domino affect. The Public Works Director responded possibly; stated efforts will be made to continue to look for grants. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated that he is always hesitant to defer Capital Improvement Projects because costs increase down the road; he would like to have the Lincoln Park project reviewed very carefully. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired what is the project cost [Lincoln Park], to which the Public Works Director responded $300,000. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether the fund balance is commonly called the reserves, to which the Finance Director responded the fund balance is the City's reserves. louncilmember/Boaro Member/Commissioner Matarrese requested information on the Emergency Medical Response (EMS) Taxi inquired whether said tax would be a way to gain revenue. The Finance Director responded possibly; stated that she does not have all the facts; information would be provided; she does not know when the advisory vote was taken; Alameda is the only City in the County that does not assess the tax. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired how long the Lincoln Park project would take, to which the City Engineer responded design would take approximately six to nine months. Mayor/Chair Johnson responded the length of time is a problem because Alameda High School uses the area as its home baseball field; the field needs to be done by December. The Public Works Director stated one option could be to fund the design now; construction costs could be moved to next year. Mayor/Chair Johnson requested that staff check with the High School regarding the baseball schedule. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse 6 and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Comm… | CityCouncil/2008-02-19.pdf |
CityCouncil/2008-03-04.pdf,18 | CityCouncil | 2008-03-04 | 18 | MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY - -MARCH 4, 2008- -6:00 P. M. Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:10 p.m. Roll Call - Present : Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor Johnson - 5. Absent : None. The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider: (08-091) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation; Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 54956.9; Number of cases One. (08-092) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (54956.9) i Name of Case Collins V. City of Alameda. (08-093) Conference with Labor Negotiators; Agency Negotiators: Human Resources Director; Employee Organizations International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened and Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Anticipated Litigation, Council received a briefing from Legal Counsel on a matter of potential litigation; no action was taken; regarding Existing Litigation, Council received an update on the status of litigation, including settlement negotiations; no action was taken; regarding Labor, the matter was not heard. Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 7:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Meeting Alameda City Council March 4, 2008 | CityCouncil/2008-03-04.pdf |
CityCouncil/2008-03-18.pdf,18 | CityCouncil | 2008-03-18 | 18 | four or five years; the budget needs to be put in proper content i a meltdown has started to occur. (08-128) - Mayor Johnson stated that more focus needs to be placed on long-term economic issues; thought should be given to forming a committee to focus on long-term economic sustainability; the matter could possibly be placed under Council Referrals. Vice Mayor Tam inquired whether the Economic Development Commission could be tasked with the role, to which Mayor Johnson responded possibly. Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether there is consensus to have the matter placed on a City Council agenda. Mayor Johnson responded the matter could be placed on a City Council agenda for discussion. Councilmember deHaan stated that Toyota is in full swing of building a facility on Hegenberger Road the facility will be in place within six months Alameda cannot back fill anything quick enough. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Regular Meeting at 10:39 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 18 March 18, 2008 | CityCouncil/2008-03-18.pdf |
CityCouncil/2008-04-15.pdf,18 | CityCouncil | 2008-04-15 | 18 | between the City of Alameda and Peralta Community College District for dedication of the Stargell Right-of-Way; and a Side Letter between the City of Alameda and Palmtree Acquisition Corporation for dedication of the Stargell Right-of-Way; - - (08-19A - CIC) Adoption of Resolution Approving Letter of Intent By and Among Palmtree Acquisition Corporation, Peralta Community College District, and the CIC and Authorizing the CIC to Accept the Deed to Property. Mayor/Chail Johnson announced that the item would be continued. (08-20 - CIC) Recommendation to approve the first amendment to the Contract with City Design Collective in the amount of $6,500 to include water color illustrations in the North of Lincoln Strategic Plan for the Park Street Business District. The Development Services Director gave a brief presentation. Commissioner deHaan inquired whether there would be one illustration or a series of illustrations, to which the Development Services Director responded a set of illustrations. Commissioner deHaan inquired how many illustrations, to which the Development Services Director responded that she did not know. Commissioner deHaan stated the process is going well. he is concerned with the 8% budget increase for the illustrations. The Development Services Director stated the Contract was sized with several options; the illustrations were bid as part of an option to the Contract. Commissioner deHaan inquired whether a watercolor illustration is necessary. The Development Services Director responded a computer graphic illustration would require gathering all of the parcel information. Commissioner deHaan moved approval of the staff recommendation. Commissioner Matarrese stated that having pictures is worthwhile; inquired what would not be done by taking money from another General Fund source. The Development Services Director responded the money would come from Planning Department fees, not a General Fund account. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and 18 Community Improvement Commission April 15, 2008 | CityCouncil/2008-04-15.pdf |
CityCouncil/2008-05-06.pdf,18 | CityCouncil | 2008-05-06 | 18 | Councilmember Matarrese suggested some type of public recognition for the work done by the Task Force; requested that the presentation be posted to the website and that future Power Point presentations be included in the packet. On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. ( 08-198) - Resolution No. 14208, "Opposing Proposition 98 and Supporting Proposition 99. " Adopted. The Deputy City Manager gave a brief presentation. Mayor Johnson inquired whether CalTrans would be able to use eminent domain to do road improvements under Proposition 98. The Deputy City Manager responded said improvements would be more difficult and costly. Mayor Johnson stated the City's redevelopment ordinances do not allow taking of residential property. Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution. Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (08 -199) - Robb Ratto, PSBA, stated C-C Zoning was created for the Park Street Business District; a Park Street Business District member was informed that a Use Permit is needed to change an address; the Use Permit would cost $1,800; the business should have been included as an approved usage, especially on a second floor; there is not enough differentiatior between first floor non-retail and second floor usage; requested that staff be directed to work with PSBA to rewrite portions of the C-C Zoning. Mayor Johnson stated that she is familiar with the issue. Mr. Ratto stated yoga studios should have been included as permitted uses on second floors. The City Manager stated that staff would follow up on the matter. (08-200) Michael John Torrey, Alameda, extended Happy Mother's Day wishes. Regular Meeting 18 Alameda City Council May 6, 2008 | CityCouncil/2008-05-06.pdf |
CityCouncil/2008-06-03.pdf,18 | CityCouncil | 2008-06-03 | 18 | information about GABA come back. Chair Johnson stated that she would like to know how much the members contribute to support the Association. Commissioner Matarrese stated that GABA is a worthy Association; inquired whether Contracts could be executed in time to meet the requirements if the budget is adopted by the end of the month. The Development Services Director responded in the affirmative; stated Contracts have been prepared; stated authority needs to be given to execute the Contracts. Commissioner Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. AGENDA ITEM (08-231 CC) Resolution No. 14213, "Approving and Authorizing Execution of a Second Amendment of the Disposition and Development Agreement (Alameda Landing Mixed Use Project) with Palmtree Acquisition Corporation. " Adopted and (08-34 CIC) Resolution No. 08-156, "Authorizing the Executive Director to Enter Into a Second Amendment to the Disposition and Development Agreement (Alameda Landing Mixed Use Project) with Palmtree Acquisition Corporation. Adopted. The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager gave a Power Point presentation. Aidan Barry, Catellus Development Group, stated Catellus has entered into an agreement with the Navy and the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) which allows for the removal of covenants and restrictions that precluded the opportunity to do the mixed - use development; Catellus worked with the City to redesign the waterfront; the Stargell Avenue acquisition involves multiple parties currently, negotiations are taking place with Target. discussions are continuing with Clif Bar. Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese inquired where the hospital demolition is referenced in the report. The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded Page 12 of the Second Amendment, Section D. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Public 4 Financing Authority, and Community Improvement Commission Meeting June 3, 2008 | CityCouncil/2008-06-03.pdf |
CityCouncil/2008-06-17.pdf,18 | CityCouncil | 2008-06-17 | 18 | brought back because collection should be improved. Councilmember Matarrese requested that information be brought back on how much the uncollected [ambulance] fees represents in dollars. Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion. Under discussion, Councilmember deHaan stated that Alameda goes to Oakland 273 times versus Oakland coming to Alameda 23 times; the recovery rate could change if determinations are made later. Mayor Johnson stated the Contract should state that mutual aid should be proportionate. Councilmember deHaan stated revenue generation would be impacted if the City does not provided services to Oakland. The City Manager stated the issue would be monitored and adjustments would be made in the quarterly report if necessary. Councilmember Matarrese stated reports need to be provided more than quarterly; some issues need to be monitored continually and constantly. Mayor Johnson requested monthly reports. On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote - Ayes Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Mayor Johnson - 4. Noes: Vice Mayor Tam - 1. (08-277C CC) Public Hearing to Establish Proposition 4 Limit (Appropriation Limit) for Fiscal Year 2008-2009; and Resolution No. 14224, "Establishing Appropriations Limit for Fiscal Year 2008-09. " Adopted. Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution. Vice Mayor Tam seconded the motion. Under discussion, Vice Mayor Tam stated data is based on the amount of City or County population growth and CPI; Alameda's population growth is smaller than other cities in the County; inquired where is the demand for services and commensurate need for increased costs if population growth has not increased. Mayor Johnson responded services are decreasing, but costs are Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Public Financing Authority, Alameda Reuse and 8 Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission June 17, 2008 | CityCouncil/2008-06-17.pdf |
CityCouncil/2008-07-01.pdf,18 | CityCouncil | 2008-07-01 | 18 | would like to review the fee structure, particularly the $5 Junior fee; the Golf Course supports junior programs and seniors; the General Fund anticipates a $500,000 shortfall next year; the RFP process would take six months to a year; once something is contracted out, it is never gotten back; he was hoping to get more information on marketing and capital improvements for the existing operation. Councilmember deHaan moved approval of seeking both operation and management proposals. Councilmember deHaan stated full time management is needed in the interim period; some improvements can be made on a daily basis with current staff. Vice Mayor Tam inquired whether Councilmember deHaan's motion was to issue a RFP to secure a long-term and interim operator. Councilmember deHaan responded in the affirmative stated that he wished the original report had been included. The City Manager stated staff recommends a RFP for a long-term operator and an interim operator for operations and management. Mr. Singer stated the recommendation is for both operation and maintenance [to be contracted out ] because the maintenance cost structure is the biggest problem. The City Manager stated just doing management is not cost effective; the interim operator could reduce costs immediately and the [RFP] process would take 60-90 days. Vice Mayor Tam stated that she would second ouncilmember deHaan's motion with an amendment; stated more discussion is needed on whether there should be a passive park, recreational specific activity such as the Skate Park, or a national class tournament - type facility; said discussion should be tabled; that she is conscious that the General Fund will be impacted very soon with respect to potential shortfalls in rounds of golf for the next two years; that her amendment to the motion would be to proceed with the RFP for an interim operator in order to stop the hemorrhaging and directing staff to work with the Golf Commission on the Master Plan and seek community feedback on a long-term vision. Councilmember deHa… | CityCouncil/2008-07-01.pdf |
CityCouncil/2008-07-15.pdf,18 | CityCouncil | 2008-07-15 | 18 | MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY - -JULY 15, 2008- -6:20 P. M. Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:25 p.m. Roll Call - Present : Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor Johnson - 5. Absent : None. The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider: (08-300) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (54956.9) i Name of Case: Hart V. City of Alameda. Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened and Mayor Johnson announced that Council provided direction and authorization to Legal Counsel regarding a potential offer of compromise. Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 7:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Meeting Alameda City Council July 15, 2008 | CityCouncil/2008-07-15.pdf |
CityCouncil/2008-08-05.pdf,18 | CityCouncil | 2008-08-05 | 18 | Mayor/Chair Johnson stated that the normal process would be followed whatever site is selected. The Development Services Director stated the Agreement would have to be amended to give Warmington credit if additional units are constructed. Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese stated the credit question is within the envelope; the Agreement should address the number of units; where the [off site) units would end up is another matter. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated Councilmember Matarrese is not saying the Agreement should stop at nine units, rather the matter should be left up to the future process; the Developer could raise the issue once a site is selected; the [off site] location is not needed to move the Grand Marina project forward. The Development Services Director stated the Agreement would have to be amended if the Developer came back to get credit for a project over nine units. Mayor/Chail Johnson stated the Agreement would not have to be amended; there could be a separate Agreement to give credit towards a different project. Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan stated the City is going though the Coast Guard housing process which will be no less than 284 houses that could easily be in the affordable range; inquired whether said houses could be included. The Development Services Director responded that she has no idea what said number would be; stated providing accommodations to formerly homeless people is a federal government requirement; it is a whole different product type and is a federal disposition process. The Acting City Manager responded the site is a homeless site, not an affordable housing site under the McKinney Act. Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether none of the units could be used [for affordable housing], to which the Acting City Manager responded not for inclusionary needs, but there are other sites that potentially could be used. Louncilmember/Commissioner deHaan stated other developers would ask to move units off site if the Agreement is approved the additional units would land s… | CityCouncil/2008-08-05.pdf |
CityCouncil/2008-08-19.pdf,18 | CityCouncil | 2008-08-19 | 18 | MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL, ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (ARRA, , AND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC) MEETING TUESDAY- - -AUGUST 19, 2008 - - -7:27 P.M. Mayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 8:01 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers/Board Members/Commissioners deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam and Mayor/Chair Johnson - 5. Absent : None. CONSENT CALENDAR Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner Tam moved approval of the Consent Calendar. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. [Note: Councilmember/Commissioner Gilmore abstained from voting on the August 5, 2008 minutes. ] [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number. ] ( 08-339CC/*ARRA/*08-45CIC) Minutes of Special ARRA meeting held on July 1, 2008 and the Special Joint City Council and Community Improvement Commission Meeting held on August 5, 2008. Approved. [Note: ouncilmember/Commissioner Gilmore abstained from voting on the August 5, 2008 minutes. ] ( *ARRA) Recommendation to authorize negotiation and execution of a Sublease for RockWall Wine Company, Inc. at Alameda Point. Accepted. ( *ARRA) Recommendation to authorize negotiation and execution of a Sublease for Auctions by the Bay, Inc. at Alameda Point. Accepted. ( *ARRA) Recommendation to authorize the Executive Director to enter a Contract, through PM Realty Group, with General Construction Company to Dredge the Alameda Point Channel and Turning Basin in an Amount Not to Exceed $2,586,675. Accepted. AGENDA ITEMS Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda 1 Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission August 19, 2008 | CityCouncil/2008-08-19.pdf |
CityCouncil/2008-09-16.pdf,18 | CityCouncil | 2008-09-16 | 18 | Vice Mayor Tam stated the proposed ordinance is a better tool than using a Major Design Review and is consistent with the City's policy to protect small businesses; the EDC minutes are very precise; the EDC clearly understands the principle of using zoning to ensure that there are businesses that promote good labor practices; the EDC recognizes the other principles that go with the economic and community impact of having a super store in Alameda; the EDC would like to see a more nuance ordinance; it was not clear what the nuance tool would look like. Vice Mayor Tam moved introduction of the ordinance. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Councilmember Gilmore requested staff to review the feasibility of having the EDC and Planning Board review Use Permits for 30,000 square feet or more. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (08-402) Bill Smith, Alameda, discussed energy efficiency. (08-403) Robb Ratto, Alameda, stated that he questions a procedure that allows people with no standing to appeal a Planning Board decision on a residential matter; inquired whether there is any way to limit who can appeal a residential Planning Board decision. COUNCIL REFERRALS (08-404) Consideration of Resolution No. 14269, "Amending Resolution No. 12121 Setting the Order of Business of City of Alameda City Council Meeting. " Adopted. Mayor Johnson stated that having a section on the agenda for City Manager staff communications would be a good idea; the public would be updated on significant issues. Councilmember Matarrese stated placement of the item could be adjusted; the item should be before the Consent Calendar. Councilmember Gilmore suggested that the item be placed before or after the Consent Calendar. Vice Mayor Tam stated placement would depend upon the subject. Mayor Johnson stated the community needs to be kept informed of Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 18 September 16, 2008 | CityCouncil/2008-09-16.pdf |
CityCouncil/2008-10-07.pdf,18 | CityCouncil | 2008-10-07 | 18 | California Cities Conference; SB 375, roles of diversity caucuses, and police and fire service levels were discussed. Councilmember Matarrese requested that Council be provided with a list of the questions related to police and fire service levels. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Regular Meeting at 2:39 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 18 October 7, 2008 | CityCouncil/2008-10-07.pdf |
CityCouncil/2008-10-21.pdf,18 | CityCouncil | 2008-10-21 | 18 | MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL, ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (ARRA, AND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC) MEETING TUESDAY- -OCTOBER 21, 2008- - -7:25 P.M. Mayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 7:36 p.m. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers / Board Members / Commissioners deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor/Chair Johnson - 5. Absent : None. CONSENT CALENDAR Vice Mayor Tam moved approval of the Consent Calendar. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number. . ] (*08-438CC/ARRA) Recommendation to authorize execution of a Payment Plan for Sales Tax Guarantee between the City of Alameda and Auctions by the Bay, Inc. Accepted. AGENDA ITEM (08-439CC/ARRA/08-54CIC) Recommendation to accept the Year End Financial Report for the period ending June 30, 2008. The Interim Finance Director gave a presentation. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the equipment replacement fund is $2.5 million, which is too much; there should be a discussion on what the equipment replacement is for and why there is so much money in the fund. The Interim Finance Director stated the revenue is generated by depreciation, which departments have as an expense how quickly the funds are used depends on budget decisions made each year the depreciation rate is based upon the schedule adopted as part of the audit and is pretty much the IRS's depreciation schedule. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether the number represents real Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and 1 Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission October 21, 2008 | CityCouncil/2008-10-21.pdf |
CityCouncil/2008-11-06.pdf,18 | CityCouncil | 2008-11-06 | 18 | MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING THURSDAY - -NOVEMBER 6, 2008- -7:25 P.M. Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 7:36 p.m. Councilmember deHaan led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL- Present : ouncilmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor Johnson - 5. Absent : None. AGENDA ITEM (08-462) Ordinance No. 2985, "Urgency Ordinance Making Findings and Establishing a Forty-Five Day Moratorium on the Establishment or Expansion of Medical Marijuana Dispensaries. Passed. The Supervising Planner gave a brief presentation. Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the meeting. (Proponents: In favor of Ordinance) : Robb Ratto, Park Street Business Association; Nick Cabrel, Alameda. (Opponents: Not in favor of Ordinance) : Isao Taguchi, Alameda; Bruce Rose, Alameda; Fred Gardner, Alameda; Kevin Good, Alameda. There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public portion of the meeting. Vice Mayor Tam stated that she appreciates tonight's comments; serving on the Alameda County Planning Commission gave her some experience from a land use prospective; Alameda is fairly new to the issue; Alameda is trying to provide safe access but is also looking at issues experienced by other jurisdictions Alameda County's unincorporated areas have three medical marijuana dispensaries; one dispensary closed because 100 pounds of marijuana and $500,000 were on site; the situation prompted the District Attorney's office to look into the second dispensary, which is about to close; Alameda is an island; the parameters of school proximity and neighborhood safety need to be reviewed; a moratorium would allow reviewing the matter in a methodical, comprehensive way. Vice Mayor Tam moved passage of the ordinance. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion. Special Meeting Alameda City Council 1 November 6, 2008 | CityCouncil/2008-11-06.pdf |
CityCouncil/2008-12-02.pdf,18 | CityCouncil | 2008-12-02 | 18 | Councilmember deHaan stated the bigger bulb out should be closer to the theater the situation is unique; the bulb outs would protect the marquee and provide an extra area for cuing; that he would not like to set a precedent. Mayor Johnson stated that she would like to have more areas to widen sidewalks; widening sidewalks is a benefit. Councilmember deHaan stated three feet is a good limitation. Mayor Johnson stated the design should accomplish the goal. Councilmember Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Councilmember Matarrese requested that staff provide information on bike locker usage; data on jaywalking citations; and possible funding sources for the northern elevation façade. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA None. COUNCIL REFERRALS (08-519) Council discussion and direction regarding adoption of a policy regarding payment to employees for all accrued time. Mayor Johnson stated Council needs to consider developing a policy regarding payment of accrued time; the matter is an unfunded liability issue. Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether the matter is a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) issue. Mayor Johnson stated the accrual is an MOU issue, payment is not. The Assistant City Attorney stated the issue would be subject to meet and confer. Mayor Johnson requested a report on whether the matter is an MOU issue and policy suggestions from management. The City Manager stated a report would be provided. Mayor Johnson stated unfunded liabilities need to be researched and tracked. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 18 December 2, 2008 | CityCouncil/2008-12-02.pdf |
CityCouncil/2009-01-06.pdf,18 | CityCouncil | 2009-01-06 | 18 | additional funds were identified through the budget processi staff knew that it implementation of lowering staffing level would be necessary at sometime halfway through the year; $413,000 of the $978,000 spent was expended for overtime related to mutual aid for wildfires and will be reimbursed by the State; the amount [$413,000] was not anticipated and would be credited back; the balance of $317,000 is expected to be available; the amount cannot be expended down to zero; an amount must be retained to keep the staffing level at 24. Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the actual amount spent for overtime of the City's operation around $550,000 if the $413,000 is removed, to which the Fire Chief responded in the affirmative. In response to Vice Mayor deHaan's inquiry regarding overtime last year, the City Manager stated there were nine vacancies last year; the overtime expenditure was high but salaries were less; now that staff is on board, the money is coming out of salaries; salary is being spent on additional personnel, rather than overtime. Vice Mayor deHaan inquired what the overtime projection would be for the rest of the year if everything were left status quo. The City Manager responded the amount is $344,277, which is in Table 1 [of the staff report]. The Fire Chief stated that he would like to make one correction; there was an additional retirement on December 31, so there are now three vacancies in funded positions. Mayor Johnson inquired whether there are plans to fill positions. The Fire Chief responded hiring is contingent on the OPEB decision. The City Manager stated the Police Department positions are also part of the analysis; staff is trying to address OPEB pre-funding; pre-funding will be required in future years; staff wanted to get through the revenue analysis; the hiring freeze was put into place to save money; the goal is not to take anything out of the reserve for the current fiscal year. Mayor Johnson stated it needs to be more than a goal; the City does not have enough to start spending the … | CityCouncil/2009-01-06.pdf |
CityCouncil/2009-02-03.pdf,18 | CityCouncil | 2009-02-03 | 18 | Councilmember Tam inquired whether the Internal Services Fund is not recovering costs completely. The Interim Finance Director responded the City's potential outside claim risk is an unfunded liability, but is not the same as the fund running a cash negative; the City would need to write a check for $6.6 million if every claim settled for the highest amount and all came due at the same time; the City needs to start budgeting for a claim liability reserve; at some point the City will be writing checks for the claims. Councilmember Tam moved approval of the staff recommendation. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. *** (09-056) Vice Mayor deHaan moved approval of continuing the meeting past midnight. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. *** (09-057) Recommendation to accept the Quarterly Treasury Report for the period ending December 31, 2008. The City Treasurer provided handout and gave a brief presentation. Councilmember Tam inquired whether California Municipal obligations are 4.4% of the City's portfolio and whether the City's mortgage backed security is 2.6% of the portfolio; stated the majority of the City's portfolio is federally backed securities which caused the 7.6% rate of return in 2008. The City Treasurer responded the City owns U.S. Treasury obligations, bonds from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, individual issues from some financial institutions, and a taxable State of California bond; City investments are restricted. Councilmember Gilmore moved approval of the staff recommendation. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 18 February 3, 2009 | CityCouncil/2009-02-03.pdf |
CityCouncil/2009-02-07.pdf,18 | CityCouncil | 2009-02-07 | 18 | City's format; the program-based format should be consistent throughout the City. The AMP General Manager stated that he would bring up the issue with the PUB i outlined the process. Mayor Johnson stated the public should only have to learn to read one budget format. Vice Mayor deHaan inquired what implementing the proposed format would cost. The Interim Finance Director stated the cost is hours of staff work; further stated setting up the system is labor intensive, but maintaining the system is easy. Mayor Johnson stated switching to the proposed format is a good thing because it allows Council to understand how money is being spent; further stated Council should be informed if additional money is needed for implementation. Lorree Zuppan, Alameda, stated the effort is commendable; the City should be cautious not to take programs down to too far of a level; time might end up being spent on things that have no net impact, which wastes resources. * * Mayor Johnson called a recess at 1:55 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 2:05 p.m. (09-064) Consider various funding options for cost recovery of Internal Service Fund (ISF) deficits. The City Manager gave brief comments. The Interim Finance Director gave a presentation on the ISF. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether department budgets would have to absorb the charge back to cover the deficit, to which the Interim Finance Director responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the amount is a true deficit. The Interim Finance Director responded the negative balance is an operating deficit; the funds represent fixed charges a sufficient amount has not been charged back for a number of reasons; staff has Special Meeting Alameda City Council 18 February 7, 2009 | CityCouncil/2009-02-07.pdf |
CityCouncil/2009-03-03.pdf,18 | CityCouncil | 2009-03-03 | 18 | MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY - -MARCH 3, 2009- -6:00 P. M. Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:00 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor Johnson - 5. Absent : None. The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider: (09-086) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (54956.9) i Name of case : Alameda Gateway Ltd. V. City of Alameda. (09-087) - Conference with Labor Negotiators; Agency negotiators: Craig Jory and Human Resources Director; Employee organizations : Alameda Police Officers Association (APOA) (09-088) Conference with Labor Negotiator (54957.6) i Agency Negotiator : City Attorney; Name: City Manager. Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened and Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Litigation, Council received a briefing from Legal Counsel and gave direction to Legal Counsel regarding its defense; regarding APOA, Council received a briefing from its Labor Negotiators regarding the status of Contract negotiations and regarding City Manager, Council provided negotiating parameters to Legal Counsel. Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 7:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Meeting Alameda City Council March 3, 2009 | CityCouncil/2009-03-03.pdf |
CityCouncil/2009-03-17.pdf,18 | CityCouncil | 2009-03-17 | 18 | MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC) MEETING TUESDAY- -MARCH 17, 2009- -7:27 P.M. Mayor/Chair Johnson convened the Joint Meeting at 8:02 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers/Commissioners deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor/Chair Johnson - 5. Absent : None. MINUTES (09-12 - CIC) Minutes of the Special Community Improvement Commission Meeting held on March 3, 2009. Commissioner Gilmore moved approval of the minutes. Commissioner Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. AGENDA ITEM (09 - 105 CC ) Recommendation to approve a $3 million loan from the City Sewer Fund to the Community Improvement Commission for matching funds for construction of the Webster Street/Wilver "Willie" Stargell Avenue Intersection Project, No. P.W. 10-08-26; and (09-13 - CIC) Recommendation to approve funding and award a Contract in the amount of $6,923,869, including contingencies, to Top Grade Construction for the Webster Street/Wilver "Willie" Stargell Avenue Intersection Project, No. P.W. 10-08-26. The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager gave a brief presentation. Mayor/Chair Johnson requested clarification on the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) funding timeline. The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager stated funding was allocated in September ; the City has six months to award a Contract; after the Contract is awarded, the first invoice needs to be processed within the following six months; construction needs to commence shortly after the award of the Contract; overall construction needs to be completed in one year. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and 1 Community Improvement Commission March 17, 2009 | CityCouncil/2009-03-17.pdf |
CityCouncil/2009-05-19.pdf,18 | CityCouncil | 2009-05-19 | 18 | ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Regular Meeting at 11:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lana Stoker Acting City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 18 May 19, 2009 | CityCouncil/2009-05-19.pdf |
CityCouncil/2009-06-02.pdf,18 | CityCouncil | 2009-06-02 | 18 | next thing to worry about is plastic bottles. COUNCIL REFERRALS None. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS ( 09 -229 - ) Consideration of Mayor's nominations for appointment to the Civil Service Board, Commission on Disability Issues, Historical Advisory Board, Housing and Building Code Hearing and Appeals Board, Planning Board, Public Utilities Board, Social Service Human Relations Board, and Youth Advisory Commission. Mayor Johnson nominated Avonnet M. Peeler, Civil Service Board; Paulina Kirola, Adrienne Longley-Cook and Jody Moore, Commission on Disability Issues; Donna Talbot, Historical Advisory Board; Ronald Khan, Housing and Building Code Hearing and Appeals Board; Rebecca Kohlstrand Parsons, Planning Board; John McCahan, Public Utilities Board; and Jonathan Soglin and Cynthia Wasko, Social Service Human Relations Board. (09-230) Councilmember Tam stated that she attended the League of California Cities Executive Forum last week; the League formed a coalition with a number of local government authorities to aggressively campaign against borrowing and takeaways; 150 cities have already passed Fiscal Hardship Resolutions the session got sidetracked because of an impromptu press conference with the Mayor of San Diego on the SaveYourCity.net campaign; the League of California Cities' Finance Director is very cautiously pessimistic about the State borrowing $2 billion, which translates to $2. 4 million from Alameda; the In-Home Care Program is being taken away ; defunding 80% of the State parks will have ancillary impacts on cities; voter sentiment is one of anger with the State Legislature and elected officials in general; passing a taxing measure will be very hard in the near term; projections offered by the League are slightly different from the Fiscal Sustainability Report; projections are that the economic downturn will bottom out at the end of 2009, but the overall recovery will be very lack luster and not terribly robust; many cities are moving toward a two-tiered pension system, particularly with the 3% at 50 formul… | CityCouncil/2009-06-02.pdf |
CityCouncil/2009-06-16.pdf,18 | CityCouncil | 2009-06-16 | 18 | MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (ARRA) MEETING; AND THE ANNUAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC) MEETING TUESDAY- - -JUNE 16, 2009- - - -7:26 P.M. Mayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 7:51 p.m. . ROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers / Authority Members / Commissioners deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor/Chair Johnson - 5. Absent : None. CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Tam moved approval of the Consent Calendar. Vice Mayor/Authority Member/Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number. ] ( *09-233CC/*09-21CIC) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council, ARRA and CIC Meeting and the Special Joint City Council and CIC Meeting held on May 19, 2009. Approved. (*09-234CC) Recommendation to Approve an Application for Federal Surplus Property for Public Park Purposes; Resolution No. 14340, "Resolution of Authority to Acquire Land - Estuary Park, North Housing Parcel, Alameda, California; and Recommendation to Authorize the Interim City Manager to Negotiate a License Agreement with the Navy for Use of Estuary Park. Adopted; and (*ARRA) Resolution No. 43, "Finding that Acquisition of the Eight-Acre Estuary Park at the North Housing Parcel for Public Park and Recreation Purposes is Consistent with the Naval Air Station Alameda Community Reuse Plan and Authorize the Expenditure of Funds to Renovate Estuary Park. " Adopted. AGENDA ITEM Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority and Community Improvement Commission June 16, 2009 | CityCouncil/2009-06-16.pdf |
CityCouncil/2009-08-03.pdf,18 | CityCouncil | 2009-08-03 | 18 | insourcing, including the hospital; the Police Department should follow the same matrices as the Fire Department to ensure that the community and police officers are not put at risk. Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Tam stated the Police Department does not have a way of charging for an inappropriate call such as Fire Department false alarms. The Police Chief stated the Police Department does not want to discourage anyone from calling 911. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired what would be the response for someone calling the Police Department for being locked out of a house. The Police Chief responded the call would be referred to a private entity if not a safety, welfare issue. Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Tam stated the dichotomy seems to be that the Fire Department is allowed to respond within six minutes for a cardiac arrest call, but the Police Department's standard is three minutes if the matter is life threatening. louncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated the Fire Department is dispatched from the County and has no say in how many people respond; the Police Department is different. Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated the Fire Department was staffed at twenty-sev at one time. the delta between twenty-four and twenty-seven should be reviewed. The Police Chief stated the Police Department has a process that monitors staffing; personnel is moved out of other units if staffing gets to a point of needing additional resources. The Fire Chief stated response times for automatic device calls are reduced; stated a full response would not be sent for said calls. Vice Mayor/Authority Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired how the Police Department's three minute response time is measured. The Police Chief responded the response time is measured from the time the dispatcher answers the call to the first arriving unit on the scene; stated the benchmark in most communities is under a five minute response for a priority-one life threatening emergency and is an exc… | CityCouncil/2009-08-03.pdf |
CityCouncil/2009-09-15.pdf,18 | CityCouncil | 2009-09-15 | 18 | ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the joint meeting at 11:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger, City Clerk Secretary, CIC The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and Community Improvement Commission September 15, 2009 | CityCouncil/2009-09-15.pdf |
CityCouncil/2009-10-20.pdf,18 | CityCouncil | 2009-10-20 | 18 | Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 12:35 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Meeting Alameda City Council October 20, 2009 | CityCouncil/2009-10-20.pdf |
CityCouncil/2009-11-03.pdf,18 | CityCouncil | 2009-11-03 | 18 | COUNCIL REFERRALS None. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (09-448) Consideration of Mayor's nomination for appointment to the Library Board. Mayor Johnson nominated Kristy L. Perkins for Appointment to the Library Board. (09-449) Councilmember Gilmore stated that on October 22 she attended the Association of Bay Area Government (ABAG) fall general assembly Ron Simms, Deputy Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) , stated HUD will be operating differently under the new administration; HUD will be working with the Department of Transportation, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of Education to coordinate funding; regional planning will be needed in order to receive HUD funding; land use and transportation decisions will need to be integrated regionalization is the only way to compete in the twenty first century HUD decision making is now going to be done at the local level; HUD is trying to position itself as a partner, not a regulator. (09-450) Councilmember Matarrese stated AB166 addresses fines for illegal, abandoned boats and also includes a surrender fund to keep decrepit boats from becoming hazards to navigation; Alameda has several thousand slips; he would like to know whether AB166 applies to street abandonment as well as marina abandonment ; marinas are left with the disposal of a boat that will not sell at auction; the most important component of AB166 is that the Governor is supplying a surrender fund; a strapped boat owner can surrender a boat to the fund, and the fund would deal with the disposal of the unsellable asset. (09-451) Vice Mayor deHaan stated Council requested a recommendation from the Police Department regarding abandoned vehicles. The Police Chief stated the Police Department is working with the City Attorney's office to finalize an action plan; a report should be ready in the next few weeks. Mayor Johnson stated the plan needs to include boats. The City Attorney stated boats and recreation vehicles will be part Regular Meeting Alameda City Council November 3, 200… | CityCouncil/2009-11-03.pdf |
CityCouncil/2009-11-17.pdf,18 | CityCouncil | 2009-11-17 | 18 | The Fire Chief responded there have been significant changes in commercial sprinkler requirements; new residential and commercial construction both require sprinklers. Mayor Johnson stated Alameda already requires sprinklers for new construction: perhaps requirements should be implemented for high-risk buildings even if the buildings are not new construction. Councilmember Matarrese stated that he would like to see refining of data tracking, such as a month to month report card, to see what is significant and what is not; the costs of delivering medical service will increase due to the fact that many more people are at home now than in the past. Vice Mayor deHaan thanked staff for the data; stated the data will continue to improve; mutual aid calls are a concern; data should be provided; community training is important; the Citizen Emergency Response Team (CERT) program is very worthwhile. The Fire Chief stated Alameda was responding to Oakland a lot a new policy was implemented last fall; Alameda does not respond to Oakland if the City [Alameda] has two or fewer ambulances calls to Oakland have been cut by approximately 90%; Alameda uses mutual aid more than Oakland. Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether American Medical Response (AMR) responding to an Alameda call is not included in the EMS response times, to which the Fire Chief responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Tam stated the presentation tonight grew out of exhaustive budget discussions; inquired what is the role of staffing in terms of providing adequate coverage and meeting response times. The Fire Chief responded an analysis would need to be done regarding how many additional companies would be needed to achieve the standard. Councilmember Tam stated staff needs to try very hard to meet the standard. The Fire Chief stated staff is reviewing things that can be done within the budget. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 18 November 17, 2009 | CityCouncil/2009-11-17.pdf |
CityCouncil/2010-01-26.pdf,18 | CityCouncil | 2010-01-26 | 18 | MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL, ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (ARRA) AND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC) MEETING TUESDAY--JANUARY 26, 2010-- - 7:01 P.M. Mayor/Chair Johnson convened the joint meeting at 10:35 p.m. Roll Call - Present: Councilmembers/Board Members/Commissioners deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam and Mayor/Chair Johnson - 5. Absent: None. The joint meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider: (10-039 CC/ARRA/10-03 CIC) Conference with Real Property Negotiator; Property: Alameda Point; Negotiating Parties: City of Alameda, ARRA, CIC, SunCal, Navy; Under Negotiations: Price and terms of payment Following the Closed Session, the joint meeting was reconvened and Mayor/Chair Johnson announced that the City Council/ARRA/CIC met in closed session to discuss a request from SunCal to take an action prior to February 2, 2010 to extend the term of the Exclusive Negotiation Agreement (ENA) and the performance milestones for two years; no action was taken in closed session and in the interest of government transparency, the governing bodies referred SunCal's request to be placed on a regularly scheduled open session agenda for public discussion prior to any action. Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the joint meeting at 11:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger, City Clerk Secretary, CIC The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission January 26, 2010 | CityCouncil/2010-01-26.pdf |
CityCouncil/2010-02-16.pdf,18 | CityCouncil | 2010-02-16 | 18 | SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL, ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (ARRA) AND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC) TUESDAY- - - -FEBRUARY 16, 2010- -6:00 P.M. Mayor/Chair Johnson convened the Joint Meeting at 6:00 p.m. Roll Call - Present: Councilmembers/Board Members/Commissioners deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam and Mayor/Chair Johnson - 5. Absent: None. The Joint Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider: (10- 058 CC) Conference with Labor Negotiators; Agency negotiators: Human Resources Director; Employee organizations: Alameda Fire Managers Association. (10-059 CC/ARRA/10-04 CIC) Conference with Real Property Negotiator; Property: Alameda Point; Negotiating Parties: City of Alameda, ARRA, CIC, SunCal, Navy; Under Negotiations: Price and terms of payment. (10-060 CC) Public Employee Performance Evaluation (54957); Title: City Attorney. Following the Closed Session, the Joint Meeting was reconvened and Mayor/Chair Johnson announced that regarding Labor the Council received a briefing from its Labor Negotiators on the status of negotiations; no action was taken; regarding Real Property, the Council/Board Members/Commission received a briefing from its Real Property Negotiator on the status of negotiations with SunCal in light of SunCall's submittal of the Optional Entitlement Application and the City's Notice of Default; the Council/Board Members/Commissioners decided upon unanimous vote to agendize a discussion of open session versus closed session procedures for a future agenda; regarding Performance Evaluation, the matter was continued; no action was taken. Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the Joint Meeting at 7:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger, City Clerk Secretary, CIC The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority and Community Improvement Commission February 16, 2010 | CityCouncil/2010-02-16.pdf |
CityCouncil/2010-03-16.pdf,18 | CityCouncil | 2010-03-16 | 18 | Vice Mayor deHaan stated the complex is still very successful; inquired how many rounds are played annually at Metropolitan Golf Links, to which Mr. Blake responded 55,000; stated there are different types of golfers; Alameda offers the most affordable golf on the market, but there is an opportunity to be more competitive. Councilmember Gilmore inquired what is happening with Alameda Junior Golf now under Kemper running the complex. Ms. Arnerich responded Alameda Junior Golf is using the par 3 and Jack Clark courses on Wednesdays throughout the summer; stated things are working very well; the pros provide half hour lessons to children who are not ready for the Mif Albright course or other courses. Councilmember Gilmore stated there are two scenarios: one scenario is Kemper operating the golf course and working with Alameda Junior Golf; the other scenario is Kemper operating the golf course and Alameda Junior Golf operating the Mif Albright course separately; inquired what the scenarios would look like on a day-to-day basis. Mr. Blake stated if the Mif Albright course were self-sustaining, Kemper would not be involved other than with lessons and tournaments; that he understands that Alameda Junior Golf would run the operation. Ms. Sullwold stated that Alameda Junior Golf would welcome the opportunity to contract for maintenance with the company that gets the contract for the other 36 holes. Councilmember Matarrese stated that the [Junior Golf] presentation noted that mowing and hardscape maintenance would be contracted to the operator of the rest of the complex; having a non-profit as a stand-alone is not practical. Mr. Blake stated that Council approval would be needed first; Kemper would be open to the idea with Council approval. Vice Mayor deHaan stated pros have always been dedicated to the youth; inquired whether that would continue, to which Mr. Vest responded absolutely. Speakers: Jane Sullwold, Golf Commission; Joe Van Winkle; Norma Arnerich, Alameda; Barbara Hoepner, Alameda; Bob Sullwold, Alameda; Dot Mo… | CityCouncil/2010-03-16.pdf |
CityCouncil/2010-04-06.pdf,18 | CityCouncil | 2010-04-06 | 18 | MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL, ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (ARRA), AND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC) MEETING TUESDAY--APRIL 6, 2010- 7:01 P.M. Mayor/Chair Johnson convened the meeting at 10:35 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers / Board Members / Commissioners deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam and Mayor/Chair Johnson - 5. Absent: None. CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore moved approval of the Consent Calendar. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.] (*10-155 CC/ARRA/*10-15 CIC) Minutes of the Regular ARRA Meeting of March 3, 2010; and the Special Joint City Council, ARRA and CIC Meetings of March 16, 2010. Approved. (ARRA) Recommendation to Approve a Waiver of License Fees for Pacific Skyline Council, BSA Sea Scouts, Ancient Mariner Regatta. Accepted. CITY MANAGER/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMUNICATION (10-156 CC/ARRA/10-16 CIC) Update on SunCal The Interim City Manager/Executive Director and Deputy City Manager - Development Services gave a brief presentation. In response to Mayor/Chair Johnson's inquiry about what is meant by negotiating a Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) based on prior efforts, the Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated the City was in negotiations with SunCal on the DDA based on the plan proposed in the initiative; negotiations stopped when the initiative failed; until the City has a pro forma and defined project description, the City cannot negotiate on aspects of the DDA; aspects of the DDA, including transfer Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and 1 Community Improvement Commission April 6, 2010 | CityCouncil/2010-04-06.pdf |
CityCouncil/2010-04-20.pdf,18 | CityCouncil | 2010-04-20 | 18 | COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (10-177) Councilmember Matarrese gave a brief presentation on the AC Transit Interagency Liaison Committee of April 14th; stated updates were provided on recent transit service changes and additional service changes anticipated for September; cuts were to be 15% during the last round; AC Transit cut 8% so there is a need for more cuts; Alameda took an approximate 20% service reduction and should not be required to take more; a Paratransit Shuttle system update was provided; technical issues were discussed regarding traffic impact on drivers pulling into the bus stops; the next meeting is tentatively scheduled for May 12, 2010; noticing of the last meeting had some problems; Public Works is going to work with the City Clerk to ensure the next meeting is appropriately noticed; submitted information to the City Clerk. Vice Mayor deHaan inquired how much of a reduction the City has had over the last five years. Councilmember Matarrese responded the City has experienced a 20% over the last year; stated that he would need to check on the total reduction over the last five years. Vice Mayor deHaan stated the AC Transit situation is getting deplorable. Councilmember Matarrese stated AC Transit staff is considering putting back the 51 Line because of protest from one neighborhood in Oakland; City staff is committed to ensuing that no cuts are made to the Fruitvale BART Station on the 51A Line. (10-178) Councilmember Tam stated that she attended the League of California Cities East Bay Division meeting on April 15th; the League has been successful in getting a million signatures; 1.15 million signatures are needed to get the initiative on the November ballot in order to protect local government funding and the State property and gas task take aways; Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) made a presentation regarding the SmartMeter Program; the Public Utilities Commission mandates installing SmartMeters; Oakland's meters are almost completely installed; Alameda only gets gas from PG&E; SmartMeters would start… | CityCouncil/2010-04-20.pdf |
CityCouncil/2010-05-04.pdf,18 | CityCouncil | 2010-05-04 | 18 | MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL, ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (ARRA) AND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC) MEETING TUESDAY-MAY 4, 2010- 7:01 P.M. Mayor/Chair Johnson convened the meeting at 10:46 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers / Board Members / Commissioners deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam and Mayor/Chair Johnson - 5. Absent: None. CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of the Consent Calendar. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number] (*10-211 CC/ARRA/10-25 CIC) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council, ARRA and CIC Meeting Held on April 20, 2010. Approved. (*ARRA) Approve a Waiver of License Fees for Driver's Edge. Accepted. CITY MANAGER/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMUNICATION (10-212 CC/ARRA/10-26 CIC) Semimonthly Update on SunCal Negotiations The Deputy City Manager - Economic Development provided a handout and gave a brief presentation. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether the public trust exchange includes the tidelands, to which the Deputy City Manager - Economic Development responded in the affirmative and continued the presentation. In response to Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese's inquiry about whether costs are too low and there is an assumption that there will be a lot of public money available to make the project work, the Deputy City Manager - Economic Development stated staff believes that some of SunCal's market assumptions are very aggressive. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and Community 1 Improvement Commission May 4, 2010 | CityCouncil/2010-05-04.pdf |
CityCouncil/2010-05-18.pdf,18 | CityCouncil | 2010-05-18 | 18 | Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated he is trying to see what is similar in Alameda. Mr. Brown stated that Alameda has a variety of architectural styles; the downtown area does not have development next to commercial; streets are active; the goal is to create a vision where density is clustered near transportation to encourage use of transportation other than automobiles; studies have shown that ridership drops off dramatically when people live farther away from public transportation opportunities. Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the southeast corner of the lagoon would be the concept for the commercial area, to which Mr. Brown responded a massing study was used to illustrate the portion of the property. Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether only 45 historical buildings would be retained, to which Mr. Brown responded that he does not have the exact figure. Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated the original number of 83 was reduced to 80 because of building conditions; inquired why the original Measure B plan and conceptual plan are almost identical. Mr. Brown responded the plan is to deliver the vision that SunCal heard expressed at numerous meetings which would be to achieve a goal of delivering an economically viable development and minimize traffic impacts by encouraging the use of density transfers and public transportation. Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) has designated transit-oriented areas; Alameda does not have designated transit-oriented areas. In response to Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan's inquiry as to why MTC does not believe the plan is a transit oriented hub, Mr. Brown stated MTC might not have considered the alternative; SunCal would work with MTC; the process takes eighteen months to two years; a complete plan would be presented in which all questions are answered. Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether an EIR is nor… | CityCouncil/2010-05-18.pdf |
CityCouncil/2010-06-01.pdf,18 | CityCouncil | 2010-06-01 | 18 | are $2.5 million to $7.7 million per acre; comps suggest between $2 million and $5 million; EPS requested information that would substantiate land prices as a percent of unit prices; SunCal provide one comp from southern California; EPS believes the combination of assumptions is overly optimistic. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese requested clarification on Mr. Brown's comments regarding EPS's assumption of $860,000 for a small house versus $1.1 million house. Mr. Musbach stated that he couldn't make sense of the issue; SunCal concludes that figures are lower than EPS by applying the average pricing across all product types, which is not legitimate. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated that he needs an answer regarding whether or not numbers are real; back calculating the cost per square foot of an $860,000 house results in a $1.4 million house instead of a $1 million house; requested clarification of the matter. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded a more detailed analysis would be provided. Mr. Musbach stated per square foot costs obscure house size and quality differences; bigger houses will have lower per square foot prices. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated the project would never pencil out by looking at just single-family homes; the Measure A compliant plan would not be financially feasible because it would not support the level of public amenities called for in the Master Plan; the Master Plan calculations were across all different housing types. Mr. Musbach stated EPS took all homes prices in Alameda and looked at that relative to Bayport; Bayport homes command a premium of 22%; EPS could have started with a single-family home and ended up with a smaller differential premium of 10% or 15%; EPS forecasted home prices in Alameda as a whole and then applied the premium to get an estimate of what the cost for what single-family homes are for Alameda; SunCal's argument is that since EPS started with a number for all housing that is for s… | CityCouncil/2010-06-01.pdf |
CityCouncil/2010-06-15.pdf,18 | CityCouncil | 2010-06-15 | 18 | picking the perfect rate is difficult because the transaction is complicated; a lot of factors go into achieving a rate; that he would suggest having a present value savings of 5% to 6%; all of the other numbers would wash out; Legacy Holdings went through an exhaustive analysis to see its actual savings would be; the City received an email stating that Legacy Holdings should be making a payment. Mayor Johnson inquired what are Legacy Holdings property taxes, to which Mr. Holmstedt responded approximately $2 million. *** Councilmember Tam left the dais at 11:00 p.m. and returned at 11:04 p.m. The Interim City Manager stated the $2 million is not delinquent. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the estimated savings would be more conservative than expected. Mr. Holmstedt responded in the affirmative; stated $9 million was set as the maximum for the principal amount of the bonds for Marina Village; last time numbers were run, the amount was approximately $8.5 million; Harbor Bay is at $10,780,000; the resolution states not to exceed $11.5 million; the idea is to set parameters so that the market can do its job; the bid process would be competitive; the City needs to ensure there is enough room because of the nature of public noticing; a bond sale is scheduled for competitive bids on June 23rd; the transaction is good; the total transaction cost, including financial advisory fees and what underwriters would be allowed to achieve, would be less than what was estimated for doing it another way. In response to Councilmember Gilmore's inquiry, Mr. Reynolds stated the rule of thumb is that financing does not make sense unless there is a present value savings of at least 3%; the limit could be put at 6% because the present value savings is anticipated to be more than 3%. Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolutions with the limit [present savings value of 6%] and direction to set a policy on single source bids across the board. Mayor Johnson stated the issue should be discussed in more detail in order to establish … | CityCouncil/2010-06-15.pdf |
CityCouncil/2010-06-24.pdf,18 | CityCouncil | 2010-06-24 | 18 | Councilmember Gilmore inquired why; stated the majority of the Council gave the Sunshine Task Force a task. Mayor Johnson stated the Sunshine Task Force Chair has expressed that she does not feel it is appropriate to send the matter to the Task Force. Councilmember Tam stated Council would have the ultimate authority to pass the ordinance; that she polled the Task Force to get an understanding on whether the assignment was acceptable to the Task Force; the majority felt that the Task Force would take direction from Council; the Task Force would help facilitate a forum if Council wanted the Task Force to review the matter; that she does not see that the Sunshine Task Force is unwilling to accept the assignment. Mayor Johnson stated Councilmember Tam polling the Sunshine Task Force might be a violation of the Brown Act since the matter is on the next Sunshine Task Force agenda; polling and developing a consensus of the majority of the Task Force is a violation of the Brown Act. Councilmember Tam requested an explanation of the violation. Mayor Johnson stated developing a consensus of Task Force members on an issue that would be on the next agenda. Councilmember Tam stated that she asked an opinion of three members, two of which are on the Task Force and one is the facilitator; that she would like a City Attorney ruling if Mayor Johnson is accusing her of a Brown Act violation. Mayor Johnson stated that she thinks Council is going beyond the intent of the referral; the intent of the referral is whether the matter should be brought back to Council to explore another avenue to review campaign reform. Councilmember Matarrese stated that he does not think the matter should be brought back until Council hears from the Sunshine Task Force; that he does not want to go on hearsay; inquired whether the issue is out in the public. The City Clerk responded after the last meeting, the Sunshine Task Force decided to call a Special Meeting on June 14th; the Chair agreed to call the meeting; now, the Task Force will be having anot… | CityCouncil/2010-06-24.pdf |
CityCouncil/2010-07-07.pdf,18 | CityCouncil | 2010-07-07 | 18 | imagining it; suggested a report with details be provided, because to get that average speed of 20 miles per hour on San Pablo Avenue, buses cruise up to 45 miles per hour; there is a speed limit here of 25 miles per hour on purpose Lincoln Avenue is a residential street and much of San Pablo Avenue is not; he thinks buses are absolutely critical for the City, and would love to get the 19 line back along with some of the other cross-Island routes; rapid transit to the 12th Street BART station is rapid until it reaches the tube. Mr. Daisa stated answers would come through City staff, because staff is coordinating consultants right now; further stated maybe findings will say the BRT system is needed sooner than anticipated. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated that he is interested in seeing the funding of such a short rapid line by AC Transit or self-funded. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired whether the presentation showed that there are ways to increase capacity through the tube through some operational efficiencies and using BRT. Mr. Daisa responded in the negative; stated the capacity of the tubes can effectively be increased by reducing the automobile demand in the tubes; the Broadway-Jackson project might be a way off, but so is build out of the project; the Broadway-Jackson project will really improve conditions going through the tube into Oakland and is high priority project, so funding is likely; stated the [Broadway-Jackson] project might take a decade or so to get built, but the [Alameda Point] project will also take some time to build out. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired whether discussion with WETA could be an opportunity to look at areas in Seattle and in Vancouver that have the ability to bring cars and passengers on a ferry to help alleviate some of the car traffic; whether said option is feasible in the project; and whether it would generate reductions. Mr. Daisa inquired whether Councilmember/Board Member/Commission Tam means between Oakl… | CityCouncil/2010-07-07.pdf |
CityCouncil/2010-07-20.pdf,18 | CityCouncil | 2010-07-20 | 18 | carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated tonight's discussion has been good and spirited; the most important issue in the City is to maintain solvency; the next important issue is what to do with the future of one-third of the island that still belongs to the Navy; that he sees the same flaws in the MOEA as in the project Development Agreement (DA), Charter amendment, and General Plan Agreement change in Measure B; he would be willing to move forward if he thought an extension would provide some hope that issues could be resolved and there would be a downscaled project that would fit Alameda and be solvent; however, he does not see such a thing; that he does not have any faith the City will see anything come out of the ground or jobs forthcoming within a reasonable amount of time; concurred with Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan regarding the project labor agreement always being a condition of the project and always being a future condition; SunCal took three years to get on board regarding the matter; the fit is not good; that he would like the City to go forward unencumbered; the ENA expires today because all mandatory milestone have not been met; the City has a chance to go forward and take a different direction that fits the times. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore thanked everyone for the time, energy, effort, and passion regarding the issue; stated former Councilmember Arnerich stated that the decision is monumental for the City; ensuring that homework and due diligence is done is important; that she can satisfy herself as she gets ready to take the vote; many of the MOEA problems come down to financing; questioned when solid financial assurance would be provided and whether the assurance would be in writing; stated the City received a last, best, and final offer from SunCal last week which she presumes has financial terms that could have some bearing on the matter; that she has not seen the document, a staff report analyzing the d… | CityCouncil/2010-07-20.pdf |
CityCouncil/2010-07-27.pdf,18 | CityCouncil | 2010-07-27 | 18 | majority of cities are able to contribute to park improvements from impact fees; the City is lucky to generate $10,000 to $50,000 in park impact fees; hence, the City should focus on upgrading the development impact fee study; another option would be using property sale proceeds; a Capital Improvement Discretionary Fund has been established this year which is not a recurrent revenue source; the City has an opportunity to put $2 million to $4 million into the fund; the City has an unfunded liability in terms of capital improvements for streets, curbs, and gutters in addition to the park shortfall; impact fees are not going to be substantial for the City. Vice Mayor deHaan stated parks and libraries will be severely impacted given the State's condition; the City will need to provide its own funding mechanism. The Interim City Manager stated a recurrent revenue source would have to go to taxpayers. Vice Mayor deHaan stated that he is bothered by a zero balance [for Fiscal Year 2010- 2011]. The Interim City Manager stated cities are going to be forced to finance capital improvements and do maintenance; discretionary State and federal dollars might not be available. Vice Mayor deHaan stated street funding has dropped from $3.5 million to $1 million. The Interim City Manager stated the City has to leverage opportunities to do joint venture with non-profits so that maintenance dollars can be redeployed. Vice Mayor deHaan stated things are not going to get better; that he is concerned about how the mechanism might work. Mayor Johnson inquired whether there is an update on the State budget. The Deputy City Manager - Administrative Services responded the budget is at a standstill; stated the Governor stated that he will not deal with the issue, but will let the next governor deal with the issue; no one seems to be in a hurry. Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the State deficit is at $19 billion and holding, to which the Deputy City Manager - Administrative Services responded $19 billion sounds right. AGENDA ITEMS (10-389 … | CityCouncil/2010-07-27.pdf |
CityCouncil/2010-09-07.pdf,18 | CityCouncil | 2010-09-07 | 18 | (10-427) Councilmember Tam stated for weeks Mayor Johnson, the Interim City Manager, and the City Attorney have been asking the District Attorney through outside counsel, Michael Colantuono, to expedite the investigation so that the City can get on with its business; for the record, based on the letter that the District Attorney has sent and the Island blog has published on its website, she learned that the City's special counsel sent five letters of which she has only seen three along with her attorney; her attorney has sent two; the City Attorney's office, through Mr. Colantuono, submitted a letter practically every other week documenting issues and concerns they have with her email and her communications; 285 pages; the District Attorney waited and reviewed every single one in a very exhaustive way; they have come to the determination that there is no legal or factual basis to support the allegations that the Brown Act has been violated or that she has mishandled confidential information; asking the Council to discuss issues of concern to the public, whether the public raises it, whether a City business partner raises it, or whether an employee group raises it, is wholly appropriate and is part of her responsibility as a City Councilmember; it is unfortunate that the City issued a press release that does not seem to respect the exhaustive review and the analysis of the District Attorney that has lasted over two months; it is also unfortunate that they have produced a press release that distorts the District Attorney's findings that the matter is closed. (10-428) Councilmember Gilmore stated that she understands that the County is at a very preliminary stage in discussing the potentially moving forward with Countywide project labor agreements that would affect all cities; it might behoove the City to take a look at the issue; that she will bring back a Council Referral for discussion. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the meeting at 10:38 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weis… | CityCouncil/2010-09-07.pdf |
CityCouncil/2010-09-21.pdf,18 | CityCouncil | 2010-09-21 | 18 | (10-456) Consider Taking Action Regarding Calming Traffic on Residential Streets that Have Become Overburdened, Used as "Cut-Throughs" or Experience Other Traffic Problems. Referral was to be placed on October 5, 2010 agenda. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (10-457) Consideration of Mayor's Nominations for Appointment to the Housing Commission, Library Board, and Planning Board. Mayor Johnson nominated Fayleen Allen or appointment to the Housing Commission and Nancy Lewis for appointment to the Library Board; continued the Planning Board nomination. Speaker: Jon Spangler, Alameda. (10-458) Councilmember Gilmore stated that she attended the School District's workshop regarding the parcel tax; encouraged the public to become engaged and attend the workshops; stated the School District's funding crises is not just a school issue, but a community issue; the community needs to come together to solve or aid the funding crises; that she will do everything that she can; schools are a vital part of the City's infrastructure; the community will not function well without supporting the schools. (10-459) Councilmember Gilmore stated Council has asked for performance plans from Council's direct reports [Interim City Manager, City Attorney, and City Clerk]; one was due by tonight's meeting; that she has not received the performance plan; Council cannot schedule performance reviews of Council's direct reports; that she wants to know what is the hold up. (10-460) Vice Mayor deHaan stated a lot of [election] surveys are being done; requested that the City Clerk provide information on the source of the surveys. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the meeting at 10:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 18 September 21, 2010 | CityCouncil/2010-09-21.pdf |
CityCouncil/2010-10-05.pdf,18 | CityCouncil | 2010-10-05 | 18 | MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY--OCTOBER 5, 2010-6:30 P.M. Mayor Johnson convened the meeting at 6:32 p.m. Roll Call - Present: Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam and Mayor Johnson - 5. Absent: None. The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider: (10-464) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation (54956.9(b); Number of Cases: One. (10-465) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (54956.9(a); Name of Case: Ottaviano V. City of Alameda. Not heard. Following the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Anticipated Litigation, the City Council received a briefing from Legal Counsel; no action was taken. Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the meeting at 7:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Meeting Alameda City Council October 5, 2010 | CityCouncil/2010-10-05.pdf |
CityCouncil/2010-11-16.pdf,18 | CityCouncil | 2010-11-16 | 18 | Vice Mayor/Commissioner deHaan inquired what is the percentage of [allowed] live- aboards, to which the Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded 10%. The Panning Services Manager stated the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) limit live-aboards to 10%. Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of giving direction to ensure that the CIC's interest in preserving and promoting industrial and commercial use serving the maritime community, specifically the Alaska Packers building, be highlighted as a CIC interest. Councilmember/Commissioner Tam inquired whether Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese is giving direction on the ENA. Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese responded the direction is to enter into the ENA and ensure that the CIC's interest be highlighted to maintain and promote commercial activity, specifically the Alaska Packers building. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services requested clarification on whether the ENA would be modified or the direction is being provided to staff separately, to which Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese responded direction is being provided to staff. Councilmember/Commissioner Gilmore inquired at what point parking would be discussed if the ENA were approved. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded in the first several months, Warmington Residential would perform soil and environmental assessments; stated an update could be provided in thirty days; staff would have a better understanding of Grand Marina lease negotiations at that time. Councilmember/Commissioner Tam stated that she understands the sentence in the staff report noting "if Warmington elects not to proceed with the project and terminates the ENA, the CIC will reimburse Warmington within 60 days for the actual costs of the geotechnical and environmental testing for an amount not-to-exceed $100,000;" she does not understand the reciprocity with the City; inquired whether the City could terminate the ENA if an appropriate site for the Animal Shelter and C… | CityCouncil/2010-11-16.pdf |
CityCouncil/2011-02-15.pdf,18 | CityCouncil | 2011-02-15 | 18 | In response to Commissioner Johnson's inquiry regarding the timeline in the agreement, Mr. Marshall stated Catellus is proposing to abide by the timelines in the DDA; operating under a tighter timeframe would be difficult; the schedule has been discussed with Target; adequate contingency is needed for issues that might arise. Commissioner Johnson stated the community has been hearing about Target for some time; the term sheet was negotiated a couple of years ago; inquired whether there is anything firmer now. Mr. Marshall responded Catellus has four deals with Target; stated Target has set priorities and has slotted Alameda Landing for 2013; ground is being broken for a Target in Fremont, which has a more pressing need; Target calls the shots; Catellus is not in a position to push the schedule because of the economic environment; new ownership and an improved economic environment allow Catellus to better project the schedule; however, the Target project is not iron clad and cannot be guaranteed. In response to Commissioner Johnson's inquiry regarding when the project would start, Mr. Marshall stated demolition would have to start soon. Commissioner Johnson stated Catellus would have to move quickly to meet the milestone with or without Target. Mr. Marshall stated quite a few decisions have to be made to commit to the process; Target is an important piece; Catellus has its work cut out to deliver on schedule. Commissioner Johnson stated that she is disappointed to hear that the project was relegated to a non-core asset status [under ProLogis; inquired how and when the status occurred and how the City can ensure it does not happen again. Mr. Marshall responded ProLogis never indicated the project would not go forward; stated the point is that Alameda Landing would be the centerpiece going forward [under TPG]; the project is reintroducing the Catellus brand. Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the proximity of the Emeryville Target would impact Alameda. Mr. Whiskeman responded Target took over the old Home Depot Ex… | CityCouncil/2011-02-15.pdf |
CityCouncil/2011-07-19.pdf,18 | CityCouncil | 2011-07-19 | 18 | MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY TUESDAY, July 19, 2011 The meeting convened at 10:19 p.m. with Chair Gilmore presiding. 1. ROLL CALL Present: Board Members Bonta, deHaan, Johnson, Tam and Chair Gilmore - 5. Absent: None. 2. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT) None. 3. CONSENT CALENDAR (*11-056) Approve the Minutes of the Joint City Council, ARRA and Community Improvement Commission Meeting of June 28, 2011. (*11-057) Approve the Second Amendment to the Lease with St. George Spirits to Hangar 21 to Allow Qualified Shell Improvements Valued at $450,000 Over a Three Year Period. (*11-058) Authorize the Executive Director to Execute an Amendment to an Agreement with Russell Resources for Environmental Consulting Services for Alameda Point Extending the Term for Four Months and Adding $94,200 to the Budget. Member deHaan pulled item 3-B (St. George Spirits lease) for clarification. Member deHaan expressed concern that the ARRA was giving credits toward shell improvements that should be considered "tenant improvements', since the building can only be used for the current tenant's purposes. Nanette Mocanu, Economic Development Division Manager, explained that staff had the same concerns and discussed the type of uses. The proposed improvements would, in fact, make the buildings more publicly enticing because of the universal improvements, which include the creation of a public spirits alley, larger retail space, beautifying the lawn, and painting the exterior. Member Tam moved for approval of the balance of the Consent Calendar. Member Johnson seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.] Member deHaan moved for approval of Item 3-B. Vice Chair Bonta seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. 4. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS (11-059) Presentation on Alameda Point Collaborative Community Planning Process. The Alameda Point Project Manager int… | CityCouncil/2011-07-19.pdf |
CityCouncil/2012-02-07.pdf,18 | CityCouncil | 2012-02-07 | 18 | ORAL REPORT (12-063) Oral Report from Member deHaan, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) Representative. None given. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 11:17 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Special Meeting Alameda City Council 4 February 7, 2012 | CityCouncil/2012-02-07.pdf |
CityCouncil/2012-05-08.pdf,18 | CityCouncil | 2012-05-08 | 18 | ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 10:41 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Special Meeting Alameda City Council 18 May 8, 2012 | CityCouncil/2012-05-08.pdf |
CityCouncil/2012-05-15.pdf,18 | CityCouncil | 2012-05-15 | 18 | heard. (12-246) Introduction of Ordinance Establishing a Depreciation Policy for City Vehicles, Equipment, and Facilities. Introduced. The Assistant City Manager and City Manager gave a brief presentation. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the ordinance only applies to facilities built or renovated using Measure C funding, to which the Assistant City Manager responded in the affirmative. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the ordinance would apply to other facilities, to which the Assistant City Manager responded in the negative. In response to Councilmember deHaan's inquiry regarding collecting money according to the life expectancy of equipment, the City Manager stated the policy says equipment is to be sold and the money set aside is used to replace the equipment. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the annual costs have been projected, to which the Assistant City Manager responded the Police and Fire Chiefs have done some work on costs. In response to Councilmember deHaan's inquiry regarding facilities, the City Manager stated the life has to be determined on a case by case basis; a fire station had a 75 year useful life; long term leases run 66 years. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether routine maintenance is included, to which the Assistant City Manager responded for facilities, not for vehicles. In response to Councilmember Tam's inquiry regarding resale value and replacement of a fire engine, the Assistant City Manager responded decisions are made on a case by case basis; most recently, apparatus have be leased because it made the most financial sense. Jon Spangler, Alameda, questioned why the City is not adopting the policy citywide, independent of Measure C. Mayor Gilmore, Councilmembers Tam and Johnson and the City Manager responded the City cannot afford to do so. Vice Mayor Bonta inquired whether the policy could apply to new purchases made without Measure C funds, to which the City Manager responded in the negative; stated all new public safety vehicles would be purchased under Measure C.… | CityCouncil/2012-05-15.pdf |
CityCouncil/2012-06-19.pdf,18 | CityCouncil | 2012-06-19 | 18 | In response to Councilmember Tam's inquiry regarding hardship, the Chief Building Official stated the County may have a process if property owners have hardships and cannot pay property taxes; the City is not a part of said process. Mayor Gilmore stated there seems to be some confusion; inquired whether the liens are part of the property tax paid twice per year or whether the amount is paid when the property is sold. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 18 June 19, 2012 | CityCouncil/2012-06-19.pdf |
CityCouncil/2013-04-02.pdf,18 | CityCouncil | 2013-04-02 | 18 | meet needs; zoning allows for an educational facility, a school garden or open space; the issue is funding; that she does not have a sense of whether or not the School District has heard directly from the community and teachers on building an educational facility; the area is in need of open space and the City wants to work with the community; maybe East Bay Regional Park District could purchase the property; the City needs to move forward with a cohesive, consistent vision. Councilmember Tam moved adoption of the resolution certifying the EIR. Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Mayor Gilmore expressed her appreciation of the speakers; stated the neighborhood has a deficit of green space; the desired property is very complicated for a whole host of reasons involving the School District, the City and housing requirements; that she would be interested in talking to residents about possibly partnering with the City on the railroad property; the comments on height limits have been good; part of the issue is economic development and part is what residents want; people wish there were more and different types of businesses; unfortunately, the economy is really bad and most businesses have not been in a position to expand or to strike out into new areas; all cities are seeking businesses willing to take the risk; getting a business of any kind to come into the City is highly competitive; the City got VF Outdoor to locate here by offering incentives other cities could not match; although a height limit is not an incentive, anything which makes the City more competitive and easier to locate in should be considered; design review is not easy in Alameda; the ordinance can change; that she is not afraid of the 60 foot limit because she does not think a 60 foot box will be built. Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft read an excerpt from Exhibit 1A of the guidelines with the reason for the provisions; moving forward is important; that she would favor including something similar to Sant… | CityCouncil/2013-04-02.pdf |
CityCouncil/2013-04-16.pdf,18 | CityCouncil | 2013-04-16 | 18 | MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY OF THE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (SACIC) MEETING TUESDAY--APRIL 16, 2013- 7:01 P.M. Mayor/Chair Gilmore convened the meeting at 9:03 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers/Agency Members Chen, Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Tam and Mayor Gilmore - 5. Absent: None. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA None. CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember/Agency Member Chen moved approval of the Consent Calendar. Councilmember/Agency Member Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.] (*13-185 CC/13-010 SACIC) Minutes of the Joint City Council and SACIC Meeting Held on March 19, 2013. Approved. (*13-186 CC/13-011 SACIC) Recommendation to Approve a Second Amendment to Agreement with Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Expanding the Scope of Work and Adding $15,000, for a Total Contract Amount of $89,000 to Provide Successor Agency Financial Consulting Services. Accepted. AGENDA ITEM (13-187 CC/13-012 SACIC) Recommendation to Approve the Updated Alameda Landing Retail Tenanting Strategy. The Housing Program Manager gave a brief presentation. Sean Whiskeman, Catellus, gave a Power Point presentation. Mayor/Chair Gilmore stated at a previous meeting there was some doubt as to when the rest of the retail would be completed, which seems to be moving faster than anticipated; inquired whether the change is a result of the market improving, the economy improving, or marketing efforts for the site. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and Successor Agency 1 to the Community Improvement Commission April 16, 2013 | CityCouncil/2013-04-16.pdf |
CityCouncil/2013-06-18.pdf,18 | CityCouncil | 2013-06-18 | 18 | Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated staff does an good job tracking down businesses that are operating without licenses. Councilmember Daysog inquired whether a business license is required for renting out a room, to which the Controller responded in the affirmative. In response to Mayor Gilmore's inquiry regarding the 3334 Fir Avenue business, the Assistant City Manager stated staff is recommending offering a payment plan. Mayor Gilmore stated the U.S. Government is listed as being behind in garbage bill payment; inquired whether the City could lien the U.S. Government, to which the Controller responded in the negative. The Public Works Program Specialist stated the U.S. Government leases property and the bills have been submitted to City staff overseeing the lease for payment. Councilmember Daysog moved approval of the staff recommendation. Councilmember Chen seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS (13-316) The Acting City Manager announced the Library Food for Fines program will continue through July 8th; the Mif Golf Course is under construction through September and the newly renovated driving range is open; summer recreation programs are underway and it is the 60th Anniversary of Alameda Day Camp. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA None. COUNCIL REFERRALS None. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (13-317) Councilmember Chen announced that he would miss the conveyance ceremony because he would be attending an Asian Pacific American training for elected officials. (13-318) Councilmember Tam announced that she and Councilmember Daysog attended the League of California Cities (LCC) Policy Committee meeting; outlined issues addressed. (13-319) Councilmember Daysog outlined the sessions he attended at the LCC Policy Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 17 June 18, 2013 | CityCouncil/2013-06-18.pdf |
CityCouncil/2013-07-23.pdf,18 | CityCouncil | 2013-07-23 | 18 | rather than hire more employees. Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether benefits for employees hired after June 2011 are averaged on the three highest years of salary, to which the City Manager responded in the affirmative. Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the same could be done for current employees. The City Manager responded the report suggests treating healthcare benefits for current employees more like a pension program; the premium percentage would depend upon years of service; at 5% per year, employees would get 100% coverage at 20 years and 50% at 10 years; the percentage could be another amount, such as 4% or 8%; the change would be subject to negotiation. Mayor Gilmore stated employees vest after 10 years; inquired whether retirement is age 55 instead of 50. The City Manager stated there are options; Alameda has selected 2.7% at age 57. Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the tiered approach would mean that public safety employees would work longer, to which the City Manager responded in the negative; stated people will probably work longer and not retire at 50; in 30 years, safety employees will probably retire at 57; the new formula applies to employees hired after this past January and would not impact the OPEB benefit level; although the City uses PERS, the trust fund may not necessarily be a PERS trust fund; the question is whether Council wants to staff to engage unions about making the healthcare benefit more like the pension benefit. Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft responded in the affirmative. The City Manager stated changes which impact current employees are all negotiable. Mayor Gilmore requested the City Treasurer to address the type of investments that would be available to the City under a trust fund. The City Treasurer stated the staff report indicates OPEB is the largest threat to the long term fiscal stability of the City; he concurs; OPEB needs to be solved by making cuts and finding revenue; a trust fund makes sense if the City has extra money; however, the City does not have extra mo… | CityCouncil/2013-07-23.pdf |
CityCouncil/2013-09-17.pdf,18 | CityCouncil | 2013-09-17 | 18 | (13-416) Councilmember Tam stated that she and Councilmember Daysog attended a neighborhood watch meeting at Bayport; residents are impressed with the Police Department; reviewed crime statistics; commended the Police Department. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 10:28 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 13 September 17, 2013 | CityCouncil/2013-09-17.pdf |
CityCouncil/2013-09-25.pdf,18 | CityCouncil | 2013-09-25 | 18 | the Main Street neighborhood should be land banked until the City exceeds the 1,400 limit; that he has been thinking about the same priority zones as Board Member Knox White; the enterprise zone is blank land which is relatively attractive; the historic district buildings are beautiful, but will be really tough; Council should weigh in on such matters. Mayor Gilmore stated that she thought she heard consensus among her colleagues about the priority zone being the Town Center and enterprise zone, which are probably going to go together organically; housing is a little bit tougher; she understands the theoretical desire to put all of the housing in the Town Center phase and have 1,200 multifamily units because it would help transit; however, she does not know whether building 900 instead of 1,200 housing units would be significant for retail or transit; the number of Bayport housing units did not do anything for transit; that she would like to have the flexibility before facing a unit penalty because a decision might be made to build single family houses if somebody is going to pay a lot for the land; reaching a deal with the Navy took 17 years; she is hesitant to put all the housing leggs in one basket; going to the Navy in five years to say the deal struck no longer works for the City could be a momentum killer. President Burton stated one reason transit might not have worked at Bayport is because single family, rather than multifamily, housing was built; multifamily housing is more supportive of transit; the 1,425 limit could be reached quickly whether housing units are built at the Town Center or some are reserved for the Main Street neighborhood; the City could end up holding a conversation with the Navy quickly. Councilmember Chen stated building Bayport, which is only 500 homes, took at least five or six years; realistically, building 1,425 units could take decades; that he really likes the approach that staff will not just concentrate on the business aspect and will develop some housing, especially using th… | CityCouncil/2013-09-25.pdf |
CityCouncil/2013-10-15.pdf,18 | CityCouncil | 2013-10-15 | 18 | MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY--OCTOBER 15, 2013- -600 P.M. Mayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 5:36 p.m. Roll Call - Present: Councilmembers Chen, Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Tam and Mayor Gilmore - 5. [Note: Councilmember Chen arrived at 6:06 p.m. and Councilmember Daysog arrived at 6:09 p.m.] Absent: None. The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider: (13-455) Conference with Real Property Negotiators (54956.8); Property: Alameda Point; Negotiator: John Russo, City Manager; Negotiating party: Charles Company; Under negotiation: Price and terms of payment (13-456) Conference with Real Property Negotiators (54956.8); Property: Alameda Point; Negotiator: John Russo, City Manager; Negotiating party: Debartolo; Under negotiation: Price and terms of payment (13-457) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation; Initiation of litigation pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 54956.9; Number of cases: One (As Plaintiff - City Initiating Legal Action) (13-458) Public Employee Performance Evaluation; Pursuant to Government Code § 54957; Position Evaluated: City Attorney - Janet Kern Following the Closed Session the meeting was reconvened and Mayor Gilmore announced that regarding Charles Company, the Council gave direction to staff; regarding Debartolo, the Council gave direction to staff; and regarding Anticipated Litigation, Council gave direction to staff. Mayor Gilmore called a recess at 7:17 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 11:05 p.m. Following the Closed Session the meeting was reconvened and Mayor Gilmore announced that regarding Performance Evaluation, the meeting was continued. Special Meeting Alameda City Council October 15, 2013 | CityCouncil/2013-10-15.pdf |
CityCouncil/2013-11-05.pdf,18 | CityCouncil | 2013-11-05 | 18 | MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD MEETING TUESDAY--NOVEMBER 5, 2013- -600 P.M. Mayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 6:04 p.m. Roll Call - Present: Councilmembers Chen, Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Tam and Mayor Gilmore; Board Members Hamm, McCormick, Russo, Sutter, and President Deaton - 10. Absent: None. The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider: (13-484 CC/PUB) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (54956.9); Case Name: Nuveen V. City of Alameda; United States District Court, Northern District of California Case No. CV 08-04575-SI; and Case Name: Vectren V. City of Alameda; United States District Court, Northern District of California Case No. CV 08-03137 SI (13-485 CC) Conference with Real Property Negotiators (54956.8); Property: 1535 Buena Vista Avenue; Negotiator: John Russo, City Manager; Negotiating party: Fortmann Marina; Under negotiation: Price and terms of payment. Not heard. (13-486 CC) Public Employee Performance Evaluation Pursuant to Government Code § 54957; Position Evaluated: City Attorney - Janet Kern. (13-487 CC) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation; Initiation of litigation pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 54956.9; Number of cases: One (As Plaintiff - City Initiating Legal Action) Following the Closed Session the meeting was reconvened and Mayor Gilmore announced that regarding Existing Litigation, the Council and Board received a briefing; and regarding Anticipated Litigation, direction was given to staff. Mayor Gilmore called a recess at 7:24 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 12:25 a.m. Following the Closed Session the meeting was reconvened and Mayor Gilmore announced that regarding Performance Evaluation, the meeting was continued. Special Meeting Alameda City Council November 5, 2013 | CityCouncil/2013-11-05.pdf |
CityCouncil/2014-04-15.pdf,18 | CityCouncil | 2014-04-15 | 18 | Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the $50,000 per unit fee seems punitive. The City Manager stated the fee is effective banking against a future penalty. Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated remaining flexible is important; there is less concern with the number of units at Site A as long as additional money will be assessed. Mayor Gilmore stated the concern is not necessarily about the number of units, but the burden on future development; the historic structures would be the least able to carry the $50,000 per unit penalty. Councilmember Daysog stated that he is ready to move forward and wants to be clear that building beyond the 1400 units is not within Council's scope. Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of staff recommendation with the modification that the RFQ will assign at least 800 units for Site A with the stipulation that any number units above 800 would include a $50,000 per unit fee; and RFQ submittals are not to include site plans or renderings at this stage. Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion. Councilmember Chen requested an amendment to the motion to amend the $150,000 deposit to $250,000. Vice Chair Ezzy Ashcraft suggested $200,000 deposit as a compromise. Councilmember Chen agreed to a $200,000 deposit. Mayor Gilmore summarized the motion to approve the staff recommendation with the amendments of a $200,000 deposit on Site A, a $50,000 premium on units over 800, and the stipulation that site plans and renderings are not to be submitted at this stage. On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (14-152) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Enter into a Three-year Contract with Akerman, LLP for Federal Legislative Services in the Amount of $7,500 per Month, Not to Exceed $270,000, with an Option, Requiring Action of the City Council, to Renew After Two Years and Six Months. The Assistant City Manager gave a Power Point presentation. Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired a staff person is related to a former Oakland Councilmember Dixon, to which the Assist… | CityCouncil/2014-04-15.pdf |
CityCouncil/2014-05-06.pdf,18 | CityCouncil | 2014-05-06 | 18 | Under discussion, Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the $17,173 for ECHO was for the fair housing portion, to which the City Attorney responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Chen clarified his motion is approval of $13,877 being allocated to AFS and $17,173 being allocated to ECHO for fair housing. Councilmember Tam seconded the motion which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Chen, Tam and Mayor Gilmore - 3. Noes: Councilmembers Daysog and Ezzy Ashcraft. Councilmember Tam moved approval of directing the City Manager to work with the Housing Authority and staff to seek $25,711 in funding sources and return with a proposal to the Council on how to distribute the funds between ECHO and AFS. Councilmember Chen seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Councilmember Daysog moved approval of the staff recommendation for the remaining funds. Councilmember Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. *** Mayor Gilmore called a recess at 12:23 a.m. and reconvened the meeting at 12:30 a.m. *** (14-179) Public Hearing to Consider Resolution No. 14918, "Confirming the Park Street Business Improvement Area (BIA) Report for FY2014-15 and Levying an Annual Assessment on the Park Street BIA." Adopted. Councilmember Chen recused himself and left the dais. The Economic Development Manager gave a brief presentation. Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired why the Park Street Landing mall is not part of the BIA. The Economic Development Manager responded the mall would have to go through a process similar to the WABA BIA amendment. Stated PSBA is reviewing the matter and would be making a recommendation: Donna Layburn, PSBA President Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of the staff recommendation. Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 17 May 6, 2014 | CityCouncil/2014-05-06.pdf |
CityCouncil/2014-06-17.pdf,18 | CityCouncil | 2014-06-17 | 18 | MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY-JUNE 17,2014--6:00 P.M. Mayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 6:00 p.m. Roll Call - Present: Councilmembers Chen, Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Tam and Mayor Gilmore - 5. [Note: Councilmember Tam arrived at 6:10 p.m.] Absent: None. The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider: (14-248) Public Employee Performance Evaluation; Pursuant to Government Code § 54957; Positions Evaluated: City Attorney - Janet Kern Following the Closed Session the meeting was reconvened and Mayor Gilmore announced that no action was taken. Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 7:02 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Special Meeting Alameda City Council June 17, 2014 | CityCouncil/2014-06-17.pdf |
CityCouncil/2014-07-01.pdf,18 | CityCouncil | 2014-07-01 | 18 | Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the additional language to stay or suspend the initiative is an option the Council can exercise if a lawsuit is filed and the City has to deal with fiscal impacts through options such as property taxes, sales taxes, and reprogramming General Fund money; to which the City Attorney responded in the affirmative. Mayor Gilmore concurred with her colleagues; stated the benefit of adopting the initiative is acknowledging the will of the people; if Council is not sued after 120 days, the property is rezoned to open space; if there is a lawsuit, the Council has authority to manage the fiscal impact of a lawsuit; a primary goal of the Council is to do what is best for the City and protect the General Fund. Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of receiving the report and introduction of the ordinance. Councilmember Tam inquired whether the motion included the amendment to the ordinance, to which Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Chen seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (14-295) SUMMARY: Approve Actions Related to Proposed Alameda Open Space Fiscal Responsibility Measure. Recommendation to Consider Options Pertaining to the Alameda Open Space Fiscal Responsibility Ordinance Pertaining to the Initiative Measure to Amend City of Alameda General Plan Including the 2007-2014 Housing Element and the Zoning Ordinance to Classify Approximately 3.8999 Acres of Land Adjacent to McKay Avenue to Open Space: Option 1 - Adopt the Ordinance; Option 2 - Adopt a Resolution Submitting the Measure to the Voters, Decide Interest in Drafting Arguments and Direct City Attorney to Prepare Impartial Analysis; or Option 3 - Take No Action. For the discussion, refer to the Report in the Initiative Measure [paragraph no. 14-294]. Councilmember Daysog moved approval of option 1: introduction of the ordinance with amendments to include language regarding reprogramming the General Fund: "the City Council cuts services or modifies the City Budget in a… | CityCouncil/2014-07-01.pdf |
CityCouncil/2014-07-15.pdf,18 | CityCouncil | 2014-07-15 | 18 | Attachment to July 15, 2014 Regular City Council Minutes | CityCouncil/2014-07-15.pdf |
Advanced export
JSON shape: default, array, newline-delimited, object
CREATE TABLE "pages" ( [body] TEXT, [date] TEXT, [page] INTEGER, [text] TEXT, [path] TEXT, PRIMARY KEY ([path], [page]) );